get_drawing_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is reasonable but not authoritative. It does not disclose what happens when no drawing is open, whether a connection to AutoCAD is required, or the cost/latency of reading a file via input_dwg.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary mode (active drawing) before the alternative. Every clause conveys information about what is returned or what can be passed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description covers the core purpose. What is missing is prerequisite context (connection/active document state) and any parameter format guidance, which matters for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by framing input_dwg as a file alternative to the active drawing, but it omits the expected format (path string, absolute vs relative, .dwg extension), which is the main ambiguity an agent would hit.

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 ('Get metadata, system variables, bounds, and entity count of the active drawing') and enumerates the returned data categories. The scope variant via input_dwg is also explicit. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the drawing-level read is implicitly distinct from entity-level siblings like query_entities and get_selection.

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 parenthetical '(or a file via input_dwg)' signals one usage variant, so the agent can infer two modes of operation. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over query_entities or get_selection, and no prerequisites (e.g., an open AutoCAD document) are given.

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