open_drawing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the read_only=True default and the safety rationale (accidental write mode is irreversible), plus the behavior when the drawing is already open. This goes beyond basic 'opens' without being exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds valuable information: activation, path flexibility, read_only risk, and already-open behavior. No filler.

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?

Given an output schema exists and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects for an open operation: activation, path handling, read_only safety, and how it behaves when the file is already open. It is well-rounded for its complexity.

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 adds meaning to path ('full path or just name') and read_only (default true and why), directly addressing the two parameters in the schema.

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 'Abre un DWG/DXF y lo deja activo'—a specific action on a specific resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like read_drawing or create_drawing by emphasizing it opens and activates the drawing, not merely reads or creates.

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?

Provides clear context: accepts full path or just name, read_only defaults to true, and if already open it activates it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like set_active_drawing for pure activation, so exclusions are absent.

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