system

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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, but the description lists operations such as ensure_ready (starts AutoCAD, opens a document, loads dispatcher) and execute_lisp (executes arbitrary AutoLISP code) which are clearly mutating. This is a direct contradiction between the description and annotations, eroding trust in the tool's safety profile.

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 uses a compact list format where each operation gets a single informative line. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition. The structure enhances scannability for an AI agent.

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 tool is complex with 11 operations and no output schema, so the description should disclose return values and parameter behavior more thoroughly. It gives short descriptions for each operation, which is a good start, but lacks details on what each operation returns (except runtime which mentions 'details for spawn diagnostics') and does not cover the data and include_screenshot parameters comprehensively. This is a minimum-viable but incomplete specification.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does enumerate the valid operation values (adding meaning beyond the raw string type) and documents data:{code} for execute_lisp. However, it does not explain the data parameter for other operations and completely omits include_screenshot, leaving significant gaps.

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 opens with 'Server status and management' and enumerates 11 specific operations, making the tool's purpose and scope unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes itself from domain-specific siblings like product, drawing, and layer by focusing on system-level operations.

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 usage context for several operations (e.g., preflight for checking without starting AutoCAD, supervisor_status for reading external heartbeat), but it never explicitly contrasts this tool with sibling tools or states when to avoid using it. There is no direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the operation names.

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