list_open_drawings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the basic function implied by the name and does not reveal any side effects, error conditions, session requirements, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 very brief and front-loaded, but it is in Spanish and contains an ambiguous term ('activo'). While conciseness is a positive, the lack of clarity undermines structure, making it less effective than a well-worded English sentence.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values need not be described, but the description is still inadequate. With no annotations, no usage guidance, and an ambiguous phrase, the agent lacks sufficient context to fully understand the tool's purpose, especially the meaning of 'activo' and its role in the output.

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 coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to describe, the description does not need to explain parameter usage, matching the baseline of 4 for parameter-less tools.

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 tool lists open drawings in AutoCAD and indicates the active one, which is a specific operation. However, it is written in Spanish while the tool name is English, and 'activo' is ambiguous (could mean 'active' or 'asset'), reducing clarity. It does distinguish from sibling tools like open_drawing by implying a listing operation.

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 such as get_drawing_info or open_drawing. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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