cad_command

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds critical context: commands are blocked unless explicitly allowlisted in the plugin configuration. It doesn't explain what happens on failure, what the return format is, or how waiting for completion affects behavior, so it earns a 3 despite the useful allowlist note.

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 concise sentences with no waste, and the primary constraint (use only as fallback) is front-loaded before the allowlist condition. Very efficient and readable.

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?

Given no annotations coverage for safety details, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain the parameters, the command string format, expected return behavior, and the consequences of destructive commands. The allowlist note is valuable but insufficient for a high-risk, unannotated tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and all three parameters (command, arguments, waitForCompletion) lack any documentation in both the schema and the description. The description does not mention any parameter, leaving the agent to infer their format and constraints, which is especially problematic for a command-string-based interface.

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: 'Run an AutoCAD command sequence'. It also distinguishes from specialized siblings by positioning itself as a fallback when those cannot express the operation. The scope of 'command sequence' is slightly ambiguous, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

Explicitly says to use this only when a specialized MCP tool cannot express the operation, which effectively implies using the specialized sibling tools first. However, it doesn't name specific alternatives or provide concrete examples of what that means in practice.

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