Drawings placed on layouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive behavior the schema cannot: the default scope (all layouts), unit semantics (PAPER meters), the status enum (UpToDate | Modified), and scale-denominator meaning, which materially help interpret results.

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 action, then a dense field inventory followed by purpose/sequencing. The field list is long but earns its place since there is no output schema. No wasted prose, though the enumeration is heavy for a single 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields, and it supplies default scope and sequencing guidance. Adequate for correct invocation; only missing a note on result size/pagination or performance for large projects.

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 all four parameters including the three 'include*' flags and their defaults are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the 'default: every layout' behavior for the layouts param, adding little beyond structured data. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Lists the drawings placed on layouts') and immediately enumerates the returned data, so an agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling mutation tools place_drawing/modify_drawings/delete_drawings/update_drawings.

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?

Explicitly routes usage: 'Use it before modify_drawings / update_drawings, and to check what a layout contains', plus the default scope 'every layout'. It gives clear positive context and a sequencing rule, though it does not state any when-not-to-use condition or contrast with other read tools like get_layout_settings.

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