check_drawing_standards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only says it validates and provides recommendations. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies the drawing, requires certain permissions, or has any side effects.

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 two paragraphs but contains redundancy (the first sentence restates the name) and could be more concise while still covering key details.

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 description does not explain the output format (e.g., list of issues, pass/fail) despite an output schema existing, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect after calling the tool.

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 only parameter 'input_data' has a vague schema description ('The input data value'), and the tool description does not clarify what content or format is expected, only mentioning the 'current drawing' in context.

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 'Check the current drawing against drafting standards' and lists specific standards (ANSI, ISO, DIN), providing a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from general validation tools.

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 implies it is used for compliance checking but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_drawing_compliance' or 'validate_drawing_completeness', nor does it state when not to use it.

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