system

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description includes 'init — Re-initialize the backend' and 'execute_lisp — Execute arbitrary AutoLISP code', both of which are mutating/executing operations. This is a direct contradiction between structured annotation and description.

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 line is followed by a compact bulleted list of operations; every line adds specific information. No filler or redundancy.

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 description covers all six operations and their purposes, which is strong for a multi-tool. However, it omits the include_screenshot parameter and provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings; the contradiction with readOnlyHint further undermines completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by enumerating valid operation values and noting data:{code} for execute_lisp. However, include_screenshot is never explained, and the data parameter is only partially specified.

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?

Description opens with 'Server status and management' and enumerates six specific operations (status, health, get_backend, runtime, init, execute_lisp). This clearly identifies the resource (server/backend) and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on drawing/entities.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The operation list implies usage contexts (e.g., health checks, runtime diagnostics), but the description never states when to choose system over sibling tools or which operations are appropriate for which scenarios.

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