drawing_get

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it returns a preimage fingerprint (useful for expected_layout_id compare-and-swap) and explicitly flags that some fields may be unavailable — details an agent could not get from annotations or schema.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the notable extras. Zero 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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating return contents and edge cases (unavailable fields, fingerprint). It stops short of explaining how the fingerprint is meant to be consumed or what 'unavailable' means operationally, leaving a small gap for a read tool.

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 100%, so `id`, `target_id`, and `expected_layout_id` are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., that target_id is only needed for changes, or how the fingerprint relates to expected_layout_id), so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Read") and enumerates exactly what state is returned: points, properties, visibility, lock and selection state. Combined with the name drawing_get, the resource is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like drawing_list or drawing_export.

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 statement of when to use this versus drawing_list, drawing_export, or layout_snapshot, and no note that it requires a specific drawing id. Usage is only inferable from the name and required `id` parameter.

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