query_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Query' implies a read operation and 'default 100' hints at result truncation, but the description never states read-only safety, required permissions, or what happens when filters match nothing. The headless-mode note adds useful context but behavioral disclosure remains partial.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is tight, with every line adding information. The formatting is efficient without being sparse.

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 values need not be explained, and all four otherwise-undocumented parameters are covered in the description. What remains thin is the operational context – permissions, truncation behavior beyond the limit default – but for a read/query tool this is largely sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: entity_type is explained with concrete DXF values (LINE, LWPOLYLINE, CIRCLE, ...), layer is identified as a name filter, limit is documented with its default, and input_dwg is tied to headless inspection. Only minor syntax detail (layer name matching, limit bounds) is missing.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Query entities') and states the target scope ('active drawing (or a DWG file)') with the optional filters. It is clearer than the name alone, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby read-style siblings such as get_selection or get_drawing_info.

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?

Usage context is implied by describing the two modes: query the active drawing, or pass input_dwg to inspect a file in headless mode. However, the description never says when to prefer this over get_selection, get_drawing_info, or inspect_or_create_dxf, and it gives no exclusions.

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