get_drawing_summary

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Read') and the fallback behavior ('Uses drawingId when provided, otherwise the selected drawing'). However, it does not mention potential errors when no drawing is selected or what the returned summary contains.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action ('Read a compact structural summary') and adds only the necessary fallback detail. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the main behavior but leaves gaps: no output schema exists, so the return value of the 'structural summary' is not defined. Error handling when neither drawingId nor a selected drawing is available is also unspecified.

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 single parameter drawingId's purpose and optionality, including the fallback to the selected drawing. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't elaborate on ID format or source.

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: 'Read a compact structural summary of a drawing.' This uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('compact structural summary'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_selected_drawing or inspect_drawing_element.

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 implies when to use this tool (to get a summary) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. It provides context on parameter usage via the fallback rule, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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