cad_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral hint (handles are reusable for edits) but does not state pagination behavior (limit/offset), whether entity geometry is omitted by default, or what happens with large drawings. For a read tool with 8 params and nested filters, this is thin.

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 short sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the verb and the enumerated resource scope. Efficient.

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 tool with 8 parameters, a nested filter object, an enum scope, and 13% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. No output schema exists, so the description should describe what gets returned (metadata shape, pagination, handle usage), but does not. Only one workflow hint (handles for edits) is provided.

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 only 13%; six of eight parameters (limit, scope, filter, offset, handles, includeExtents, includeGeometry) have no description in the schema and the description contributes nothing about any parameter. The description mentions 'handles' and 'system variables' loosely but does not explain scope enum values, filter semantics, pagination, or the geometry flag. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 (Read) plus a concrete resource list of CAD drawing metadata (system variables, layers, blocks, layouts, styles, entities). Clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with cad_edit/cad_document beyond the hint 'Use handles returned here for precise edits.'

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 second sentence implies a workflow: read here, then edit using returned handles. But no explicit when-to-use vs siblings (e.g., cad_document, cad_measure, cad_instances) is given. Implied usage only.

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