drawing_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results carry entity IDs and 'actual shape names' (implying no name normalization), but doesn't say what scope is listed (active chart vs target_id tab) or whether results include user-drawn vs Pine-generated drawings despite the word 'native'.

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 no filler — the key distinction (entity IDs, shape names) is right there. It is a sentence fragment, but every word earns its place.

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 usefully sketches the return payload (entity IDs, shape names). However it leaves open the scoping question an agent must resolve — whether target_id is needed to list a non-active tab — and says nothing about pagination or how many drawings come back.

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 both target_id and expected_layout_id are already documented in the schema; the description adds nothing about them. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('native chart drawings') and an explicit statement of what the result contains (exact entity IDs, actual shape names). It reads clearly against siblings like drawing_get/drawing_create, though it never explicitly says how it differs from drawing_get 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 explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, but the phrase 'exact entity IDs' strongly implies this is the discovery step that feeds drawing_get/update/remove. That implication is left for the agent to infer rather than stated.

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