tqs_dwg_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be a safe read. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the filtering capabilities (by entity type, level, text content) and noting that units are centimeters, which informs the interpretation of returned data without contradicting annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds value. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well structured for quick comprehension.

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 description covers the main aspects of the tool: what it reads, what it returns, and how to filter. With no output schema, it provides a brief overview of return content (metadata, entities, etc.). However, it omits details about pagination or the behavior of 'limit' and 'include', leaving slight gaps in completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of entity_types, level, and text_contains filtering, and implies dwg_path from the drawing read context. However, it does not clarify the meaning or usage of 'limit' or 'include', leaving some parameters underspecified.

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 reads a TQS drawing (.DWG) and enumerates the specific data returned (scale, metadata, extents, levels, blocks, entity counts, entities). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tqs_building_read, which reads building data, by focusing on DWG files.

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 gives a clear context for the tool's use, particularly mentioning that extracting TEXT entities is the usual way to pull rebar callouts and labels. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specific mention of a typical use case implies when to use this tool over others.

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