list_drawings

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's job is lighter. It adds the important context that drawings are attached to a parent object, but does not elaborate on pagination, ordering, or other behavioral details.

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?

The description is a single sentence that gets straight to the point. It is efficient and front-loaded, though it could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., mentioning the output or prerequisites).

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 the presence of output schema and annotations, the description covers the core behavior well. It mentions the parent attachment context, which is key. However, it does not clarify what constitutes a 'raw Huly parent object' or how to obtain the parentId/class, but this is acceptable for a list tool with well-schemated parameters.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no additional meaning to parentId, parentClass, or limit beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (List), the resource (drawings), and the context (attached to a raw Huly parent object). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_drives, list_issues, and get_drawing due to the specific resource and attachment context.

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?

The description implies usage for listing attached drawings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_drawing for a single drawing or create_drawing for creation. No when-not-to-use or alternative names are provided.

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