cad_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral fact that this runs without contacting AutoCAD, which explains why it is offline-safe and deterministic. It could go further on return shape, but the offline guarantee is genuinely useful extra context.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence with the offline constraint front-loaded at the end and no redundant phrasing. Every clause ('exact 0.0.3', 'limits', 'coordinate conventions', 'verified export behavior', 'without contacting AutoCAD') earns its place.

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 zero-param, read-only, offline manifest tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope of returned data, and the critical offline behavior. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it is missing.

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 zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a static, parameterless manifest lookup – nothing to pass in. No further parameter context is needed.

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 ('Return') and resource ('feature matrix, limits, coordinate conventions, verified export behavior'), with a clear distinguishing constraint: it does not contact AutoCAD. Among siblings like cad_status, cad_inspect, cad_view, this is unmistakably the static/manifest tool rather than a live-connection tool.

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' indirectly signals when to use it – for pre-flight capabilities lookup before needing a live connection. However, it does not explicitly contrast with cad_status or cad_connect, leaving the boundary with those siblings implied rather than stated.

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