cad_capabilities

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

Annotations already signal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the critical detail that this tool does not contact AutoCAD. It does not describe output formatting or potential caveats, but for a zero-parameter read-only capability query the behavioral disclosure is solid.

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 entire description is one tight sentence beginning with the action and the deliverable, followed by a key behavioral qualifier. There is no filler, and every phrase adds either scope or operational context.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it lists the main content areas. It could elaborate on the exact structure of the matrix or limits, but for a simple capabilities query the information is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema carries no burden and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies, and the description avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and defines a clear resource: the exact feature matrix, limits, coordinate conventions, and verified export behavior. It also states a distinctive constraint ('without contacting AutoCAD') that separates it from CAD interaction tools like cad_connect or cad_command.

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 phrase 'without contacting AutoCAD' implies this tool is for querying static capability information rather than live state, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it, leaving some inference required.

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