List drawing tools

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the returned record shape (type, points/anchors, pointer behavior, options) and search matching, though it does not discuss pagination or result limits.

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 tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. No wasted words, and the search behavior is appended efficiently.

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 read-only list tool, annotations cover safety, the schema covers the only parameter, and the description explains the returned fields despite there being no output schema. Enough information is present for correct invocation.

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 single query parameter is fully described in the schema, and the description restates its search target with examples ('fib', 'channel'). Because schema coverage is 100%, the schema already carries the primary semantics; the description adds only examples and slight clarification.

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: it lists built-in drawing tools. It further specifies exactly what is returned (type, anchor count, pointer behavior, options) and ties the type values to chart.addDrawing and chart.setDrawingTool, distinguishing it from sibling list 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?

Clearly indicates the tool is used to discover drawing-tool types for chart.addDrawing and chart.setDrawingTool, and explains that the query can search by type or name. It does not explicitly name when to choose a sibling instead, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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