drawing

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

The description discloses behavioral details for each operation (e.g., save uses QSAVE if no path, plot_pdf exports to PDF, undo/redo available). This goes beyond the sparse annotation (readOnlyHint=false), which only indicates mutability. However, it doesn't specify side effects like purge permanence or undo depth.

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 compact list with each operation on one line, efficiently packaging all operations. No wasted words; every line adds value.

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?

The tool has 10 operations and a minimal schema, but the description covers all operations with sufficient detail for basic use. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Minor gaps include side effects for purge/undo and the role of include_screenshot.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It specifies the required data shape for each operation (e.g., data: {name?} for create, data: {path} for open), which is essential. It omits include_screenshot entirely, though the schema provides a default.

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 identifies the tool as 'Drawing file management' and enumerates ten specific operations with one-line explanations, making it unambiguous what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on file-level operations (create, open, save) rather than object-type operations like layer or entity.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings; usage must be inferred from the operation names. It lacks statements like 'use for file-level operations only' or 'use the layer tool for layer-specific actions.'

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