cadlens_parse_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool polls until completion or 5 minutes elapse, and that it returns a summary including a preview image URL. This gives a clear operational model, though it doesn't detail failure modes or timeout behavior outcomes.

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?

Three straightforward sentences cover formats, size limit, execution behavior, return value, and next-step tool. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return summary and preview URL, and points to cadlens_get_result for detailed data. The overall workflow is sufficiently sketched, though it omits explicit mention of job status fields or error handling.

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 schema already covers all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the description adds no new parameter syntax or format details. It does contextualize the returned job_id as the input for cadlens_get_result, but that is not parameter-specific.

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 the tool parses local CAD files, lists supported formats (DWG/DXF/DWF/DWFx/DGN-V7/PDF), and specifies a 100 MB limit. The word 'local' distinguishes it from the sibling cadlens_parse_url, making the resource and scope unambiguous.

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 use for local files vs. URLs (via 'local') and explicitly directs users to call cadlens_get_result with the returned job_id for detailed entity data. It provides a clear next step but does not explicitly contrast with cadlens_parse_url or list disallowed scenarios.

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