draw_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only, chart-wide enumeration with 'List all', but it does not disclose whether the result contains IDs/handles, what shape types are included, or whether an open chart is required.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to meaning: it states the action, the resource, and the full scope.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool, the description is largely sufficient to select and invoke it correctly. The main gap is the lack of any return-value details or output format, but the low complexity and absence of parameters make this a minor deficiency.

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?

The input schema is empty with zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter requirements, so there is little to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed for this no-argument tool.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'all shapes/drawings on the chart', making the operation immediately clear. The word 'all' scopes it as the enumeration tool, distinguishing it from draw_shape, draw_remove_one, draw_get_properties, and draw_clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use draw_list versus alternatives such as draw_get_properties or data_get_pine_lines. There is no mention of workflows like listing before removing, so usage must be inferred entirely from the name and sibling set.

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