get_drawing_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important behavioral trait: the return is a rendered drawing in which matching reference numbers are framed in red, which is non-obvious visual behavior. It omits any mention of error cases (e.g., missing variant) or whether all parts are shown when no highlight is requested.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence explains the user-facing value of the highlighting rather than restating parameters. Efficient, with only minor redundancy between the two sentences about red framing.

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?

For a 7-parameter, 4-required tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials (key source, draw action, highlight effect) but not the hierarchical semantics of catalogue/group/subgroup/sgs_code or what the image contains when no highlights are given. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 57%, so roughly half the parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds real meaning for highlight_refs/highlight_parts (they cause parts to be framed in red) and validates the key set against get_table_parts, but says nothing about group/subgroup/sgs_code hierarchy or variant selection beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show the exploded-view drawing of a parts table') and ties the key structure to get_table_parts, which lets an agent map inputs immediately. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the similar sibling get_assembly_image, so sibling differentiation is partial.

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?

'Same keys as get_table_parts' implies the workflow (look up a parts table, then request its drawing), but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_assembly_image or what happens if no highlight parameters are supplied. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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