Inventory office plot resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds useful context beyond them: it explicitly states the tool never 'approves' (a separate non-write action) and emphasizes 'exact' names, indicating precision. This adds meaningful behavioral detail without contradicting 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action verb. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It covers purpose, non-write behavior, and precision, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to misuse it.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the path parameter is fully described in the schema including the path policy requirement. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, consistent with the baseline of 3 when schema carries the full burden.

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 names a specific verb ('Inventory') and a specific resource ('exact frame/layout/page-setup/plot resource names'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_publish_plan or preview_publish_plan. It also adds a clarifying negative scope ('never approves or writes'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for listing resource names without side effects, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_drawings or inspect_drawing. The phrase 'never approves or writes' provides an exclusion but lacks positive use-case context or sibling comparisons.

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