Extract Drawing Texts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the extraction scope and output fields, but it does not clarify whether block references or layouts are traversed, whether the layer parameter filters results, or whether the operation is strictly read-only.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope with no fluff. It is efficient, though it sacrifices important parameter and usage detail.

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 output schema may cover return values, but the input side is under-specified: the optional layer parameter and required file_path are absent from the description. Without annotations or parameter descriptions, an agent faces ambiguity about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention either parameter. An agent cannot learn that file_path is the drawing to read or that layer optionally filters extracted text entities; the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action and resource: extracting all TEXT & MTEXT annotations, notes, and labels. It also lists the exact output attributes (coordinates, heights, rotations, layers), which clearly distinguishes this from general sibling tools like query_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 guidance on when to choose this tool versus query_drawing_entities, list_blocks, or other siblings. The usage context is implied by the name but not stated, and there are no exclusions or alternative routes.

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