Creates a detailed drawing analysis report from supplied input data, helping you review dimensions, views, and annotations in SOLIDWORKS drawings.
Generate comprehensive drawing analysis report.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'generate report' without indicating whether the operation is read-only, modifies the model, or has side effects. The description fails to disclose important behavioral information.
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 description is concise at one sentence, but it is too brief to be informative. It lacks necessary detail to be fully useful, bordering on under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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?
The tool is part of a complex domain (CAD drawing analysis) with many sibling tools, but the description provides minimal context about inputs, outputs, or analysis scope. Even with an output schema existing, the description fails to make the tool's role clear.
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 schema description coverage is 100% (one parameter described), so baseline is 3. However, the schema description 'The input data value.' is vague, and the tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, leaving its semantics unclear.
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 states the verb 'Generate' and resource 'drawing analysis report', giving a general sense of what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_drawing_comprehensive or check_drawing_compliance, which could be interpreted as similar.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions for use. It is completely missing any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.