Inspect one DWG

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by confirming the read-only nature and listing specific inspection targets (layouts, plot settings, frames), plus the 'allowed' constraint. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the verb, resource, and scope, and every phrase ('explicit allowed', 'read-only', 'layouts, plot settings, and frames') carries meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with a rich output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, scope (single allowed file), and content areas, while leaving return values to the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description for the single 'path' parameter is fully explicit, including the CadPlot path policy. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add further parameter details, and it doesn't, which is acceptable. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Inspect' and clearly defines the resource as 'one explicit allowed DWG/DWT' with concrete content ('layouts, plot settings, and frames'). It differentiates from sibling tools like scan_drawings by emphasizing the singular focus.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: for inspecting a single explicit DWG/DWT file. It provides clear context and the 'one' qualifier distinguishes it from batch operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.