Preview plan in AutoCAD

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

The description discloses specific behavioral guarantees: 'never edits, saves, or plots the DWG'. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) by naming concrete actions it will not perform, which is highly valuable for the agent to understand side-effect boundaries.

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 packed with purpose and behavioral constraints. Every word adds value; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

With annotations covering safety, schema covering parameters, and an output schema present, the description provides enough context for a validation tool. It explains what it does and what it avoids, though it could briefly mention what kind of validation result is returned, but the output schema likely handles that.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage and both parameters (path, timeout_ms) are well-documented in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but schema already covers the semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Validate a ready dry-run plan with AutoCAD' – a specific verb, resource, and context. It also explicitly distinguishes itself by adding 'never edits, saves, or plots the DWG', which separates it from publishing/plotting tools and other validation tools in the sibling list.

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 when you have a ready dry-run plan to validate, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, even though sibling tools like validate_staged_job exist and operate in a related but distinct phase. Lacks explicit 'use this instead' guidance.

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