draw_get_properties

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure itself. It indicates a read-only operation by saying 'Get' and specifies the returned content (properties and points), but it does not disclose error behavior, return structure, or any side effects—though for a simple getter the lack of side effects is reasonably clear.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler or redundant detail. It earns high marks for efficiency.

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?

The tool is simple with one fully documented parameter and a clear noun phrase about what is retrieved. However, with no output schema, the description could be more explicit about the shape of the returned properties and points; as written, an agent knows what to expect semantically but not structurally.

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 the entity_id parameter is already documented with context that it comes from draw_list. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema already covers the only parameter.

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 operation (get) and resource (properties and points of a specific drawing), making it distinct from broad listing tools like draw_list. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but 'specific drawing' helps signal single-entity retrieval.

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 schema description adds 'from draw_list', implying the correct prerequisite workflow of listing drawings first. However, the tool description itself gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like draw_list or draw_remove_one.

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