Assess drawing annotation and note quality by checking formatting, symbol usage, and text style consistency.
Analyze drawing annotations and notes quality.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input_data | Yes | The input data value. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool reads or modifies data, or what impact it has on the drawing state.
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?
Single sentence, no fluff, but could be slightly more structured. Adequately concise.
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?
Missing critical context such as whether a drawing must be open, what the output contains, or how to interpret results. The presence of an output schema is noted but not described.
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 description adds no extra meaning beyond the input schema, which covers all parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.
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's purpose with a specific verb 'analyze' and resource 'drawing annotations and notes quality'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze_drawing_comprehensive' by focusing on annotations specifically.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.