system

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description reveals operations like 'init — Re-initialize the backend' and 'execute_lisp — Execute arbitrary AutoLISP code', which are clearly mutating and potentially destructive. This directly contradicts the read-only annotation, making the description unreliable for safety expectations.

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 well-organized with a clear front-loaded summary and a bulleted operation list. It avoids unnecessary prose, though the repeated use of 'Backend' in multiple operations slightly reduces tightness.

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 output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description lacks critical context for a multi-operation tool: no guidance on which operation to use in what situation, no explanation of the 'File IPC only' restriction beyond execute_lisp, and no mention of potential side effects for init. The annotation contradiction further undermines completeness.

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 must compensate, but it only partially does. It lists valid values for the operation parameter and shows that execute_lisp expects data: {code}, but other operations' data requirements and the include_screenshot parameter remain unexplained, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 'Server status and management' and enumerates six specific operations, making the tool's purpose explicit. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like layer, entity, and drawing by focusing on system-level operations rather than drawing content.

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 operation list implies various use cases (health check, backend info, executing LISP), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when to prefer one operation over another. The context is clear enough for basic decisions, but exclusions and alternatives are not spelled out.

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