Query Drawing Entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly communicates that this is a read-style query operation and specifies the returned data categories: coordinates, dimensions, layers, and properties. It does not discuss pagination or result limits, but the operation's non-destructive nature is strongly implied by 'Query'.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The purpose and filtering capability are front-loaded, and the return value summary is placed second. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 is adequate for selecting the tool and understanding its core behavior, and an output schema exists for return details. However, it leaves gaps around pagination semantics, exact matching behavior for filters, and any file-format assumptions, which matter given five parameters and no annotations.

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, but it only adds meaning for entity_type and layer. Parameters like file_path, limit, and offset receive no semantic explanation, leaving the agent to infer their roles solely from names and defaults.

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 verb ('Query') and resource ('entities in the drawing'), and clarifies optional filtering by type and layer. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like list_layers and list_blocks by covering arbitrary entity types and returning geometric/property data.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when you need drawing entities filtered by type/layer and their coordinates or properties. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it over obvious siblings.

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