Open a saved drawing analysis (offline)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Fully offline — no upload, no daily credit,' which is genuine cost/side-effect context beyond the annotations. It notes the registration side effect on plan/export tools, though it doesn't detail what happens on a duplicate or invalid analysis.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the offline/cost note, then the pdf_path tip. No padding, though the middle sentence interrupts the primary how-to flow slightly.

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?

For a read/register tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers source formats, prerequisites, cost profile, and the optional-but-advised pdf_path. It lacks detail on error behavior (missing/invalid analysis file) and the exact return, but annotations carry the safety profile and nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the rationale for pdf_path (needed for ballooned/package PDF exports and writing next to the original), which slightly exceeds the schema, but the baseline for full schema coverage is 3.

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?

States a specific verb (open/register) with the resource (a previously saved analysis JSON), and explicitly distinguishes the two source formats (analyze_drawing save output vs. Imnoo FileStore analysis document). It also names the downstream effect — registering as a drawing usable by plan and export tools — which separates it from the analyze_* sibling.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (an analysis saved earlier via analyze_drawing with save_analysis_to) and the alternative source. It also advises passing pdf_path so exports work. However, it does not state when NOT to use this tool versus re-running analyze_drawing, so exclusions are implicit.

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