ass_drawing_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Parse' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation and the coordinate-scale note ('drawing's own scale space') is genuinely useful context, but the description never explicitly states read-only semantics, side effects, or permission needs, leaving notable gaps.

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 actionable sentence is front-loaded, but the description then enumerates the entire return dictionary field-by-field, which is largely redundant given that an output schema already exists. The structure is fine, but the return enumeration does not earn its space.

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 low-complexity parse tool with an output schema and no annotations, coverage is borderline adequate: the coordinate-scale caveat is useful, but three undocumented input parameters leave the agent guessing about how to actually invoke it. It is the minimum viable level.

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 0% and all three parameters (text, index, doc_id) are undocumented in both schema and description. The only faint signal is that doc_id and index reappear in the described return shape, but the description never explains what these inputs mean or how they combine, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Parse a drawing') and usefully scopes it by negation ('no measurement, no line needed'), which distinguishes it from the measurement-oriented siblings. It does not differentiate it from closer siblings like ass_get_drawing, ass_drawing_bbox, or ass_parse_text, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical 'no measurement, no line needed' hints at when this is the right call versus a measurement tool, but no alternative is named and no positive when-to-use condition is given. An agent must still infer the selection criteria from sibling names alone.

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