drawing_project

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

Behaviors such as separate layers for visible/hidden edges, output format selection by suffix, and refusal of colliding paths are disclosed. The idempotentHint annotation is consistent, and no contradictions exist.

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, well-structured paragraph with no redundancy. Each sentence conveys essential information efficiently.

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?

Given the complexity, the description covers input types, output formats, views, layers, and a safety check. It could explicitly state the output is a file or data, but overall it is adequate.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the role of path, out_path, view, scale, and include_hidden by implication. For example, it mentions hidden edges are dashed, linking to include_hidden. This adds value beyond the schema titles.

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 explicitly states the tool projects B-rep models (STEP/BREP/IGES) to 2D SVG/DXF from named views, distinguishing it from sibling tools like model_inspect or model_mesh. It specifies input formats, output formats, and view options.

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 description notes this is 'a silhouette for hand-off, NOT a dimensioned drawing,' clarifying when to use. It also mentions the collision refusal behavior, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools.

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