list_technical_drawings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the sort order ('newest first'). It says nothing about pagination or result limits (a concern for an unbounded 'list' that is newest-first), permissions, or whether it covers only the caller or a broader person scope.

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 with zero filler; the ordering guarantee is attached directly to the action. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 listing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an effectively undocumented parameter, the description is thin. It omits pagination/limit behavior and any result shape, which an agent needs before calling a newest-first list that could be large.

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 nominally 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the single parameter's schema text is only 'Default: ""' and the description never mentions design_id. Whether it filters to a specific design or defaults to all designs is left entirely to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the dimensioned drawings') plus scope ('this person has made'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the closely named siblings generate_technical_drawing, intake_engineering_drawing, or assess_drawing_manufacturability, so the agent must infer the split itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus generate_technical_drawing or the other drawing-related siblings, and no prerequisites or context conditions are stated. The only usage hint is implicit in 'this person has made', which at least implies a personal-scope query.

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