get_selected_drawing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add useful context by specifying that selection is process-specific and that the action is a non-mutating 'Return'. However, it does not disclose behavior for an empty selection or the exact shape of what is returned.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains all necessary information with no filler or redundancy. It avoids restating the tool name and is appropriately sized for a trivial getter.

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?

While the tool is simple (zero params), the lack of an output schema and annotations means the description should specify what 'drawing' returns (e.g., object, ID) and what happens if no drawing is selected. It covers the core purpose but leaves edge-case and return-shape details undetermined.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema provides complete coverage (100% vacuously). Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a base score of 4; the description adds meaning by indicating that the tool relies on existing process selection state rather than arguments.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('the drawing currently selected by this MCP process'), and it clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_drawings (returns all drawings) and select_drawing (changes the selection).

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 phrase 'currently selected' implies this should be used after a selection has been made via select_drawing, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or what happens if there is no current selection. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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