List layers in a DXF file to identify which ones contain walls and columns before extracting building geometry.
Liet ke layer trong mot file DXF, de biet layer nao chua tuong va cot.
Goi tool nay truoc khi dung dung_nha_tu_dxf, vi moi don vi thiet ke dat ten layer mot kieu.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| duong_dan | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing operation and explains the downstream purpose, but does not state behavior on invalid/missing paths, whether it is strictly read-only, or any output/error characteristics.
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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the routing rationale. Efficient, though the trailing explanation is slightly loose rather than tightly scoped.
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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives purpose and sequencing but omits the parameter's meaning and any sense of the returned layer data, leaving noticeable gaps an agent must infer.
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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'duong_dan' is undocumented in the schema. The description only vaguely implies a DXF file ('trong mot file DXF') but never names or explains the path argument, so it does not 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?
States a specific verb+resource (liet ke layer trong mot file DXF) and adds scope value by explaining the layers reveal walls and columns. An agent can distinguish it from doc_mat_bang_dxf and the dung_* construction siblings without opening any schema.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call this tool BEFORE dung_nha_tu_dxf, naming the alternative and the ordering rationale (each design unit names layers differently). It gives clear when-to-use context but no explicit when-not or error-handling conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.