Active pen tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: what the returned tables contain, the 255-pen structure, the pen field format ('#RRGGBB', weight in mm), and how element pen colors relate to the model-view table.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then return shape, then the sibling pointer. Dense but mostly earns its place; the inline JSON-ish return notation is slightly compact but informative rather than wasteful.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so adequately (tables, pens, field formats). Permissions or pagination are unaddressed but not central for this small 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by restating that includePens pulls in the 255 pens and that the table selection drives element pen colors, giving context the bare boolean schema description does not.

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 ('returns the pen tables currently used by model views and by the layout book') and even sketches the return shape. An agent can distinguish it from modify_pens and the attribute-creation tools without opening the schema.

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 for the read operation and explicitly routes to 'modify_pens' for the write counterpart. It does not spell out when-not-to-use (e.g. versus get_attributes), but the read/write split with its sibling is unambiguous.

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