list_drawing_views

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, the error condition for non-drawing documents, and that sheet formats are excluded from the returned view names. Missing only details like behavior on a drawing with zero views.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and read-only status, then usage, then returns. Well organized and short. The code example for a zero-argument call adds little and is the only slightly wasteful element.

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?

Zero parameters, an output schema exists, and the description still notes the meaningful return nuance (sheet formats excluded) plus the error precondition. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the description correctly presents a no-argument call including an example invocation. Baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 with scope: "List the views on the active drawing." An agent can immediately tell this is a read of drawing views rather than model dimensions or components. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby analyze_drawing_views, which is the one real ambiguity.

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?

Gives a concrete intended use: find a view's name before targeting it, naming auto_center_marks as the downstream consumer. Also states the failure precondition (errors when the active document is not a drawing). No explicit when-not or comparison against analyze_drawing_views, so short of a 5.

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