check_drawing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: global counts and completeness are reported even when findings are filtered, and cursors are bound to source+checks+filters. It stops short of describing finding shape, ordering, or pagination semantics.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The final sentence about cursors is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists and parameter documentation is sparse, so the description carries the burden for a fairly complex inspection tool. It explains filtering and cursor behavior but leaves the checks configuration, limits, result structure, and severity semantics unexplained.

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 only 17% on six parameters, including a nine-property nested 'checks' object that is completely undocumented. The description only gestures at two of them ('ids or severity' filters, 'cursor' binding) and never explains the name/limit/checks configuration, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Inspect') and a concrete resource ('visual quality and page diagnostics') tied to the drawing named in the tool name, which separates it from compose_/edit_/export_ siblings. It does not explicitly name the drawing artifact as the primary object, but the name and the 'page diagnostics' phrase make it inferable.

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 no when-to-use guidance and never points to an alternative such as preview_drawing or repair_drawing, so an agent cannot tell whether this is the diagnostic step before repair or a standalone check. The only contextual hint is that filtering does not suppress the global summary.

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