Scan DWG files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: files are not opened, and the path must pass CadPlot's configured path policy, which is an authorization-related behavioral detail. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the verb and object. Every phrase contributes meaning, with no filler, tautology, or repetition.

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 rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys purpose and key constraints. It could mention max_files or recursive behavior, but the schema covers most parameters, so the description is complete enough for tool selection and invocation.

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 already documents root and max_files with descriptions, giving 67% coverage, but recursive has no description. The overall description reinforces the root policy but does not add semantics for max_files or recursive, leaving recursive's meaning implicit in its schema default of true.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'DWG files' and adds valuable scope: 'under an explicitly allowed project root' and 'without opening them'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling inspect_drawing tool.

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 states a clear prerequisite: the root must be an explicitly allowed project root, which gives context for when this tool is applicable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though 'without opening them' hints that it is not for inspecting file contents.

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