get_drawing

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds meaningful behavior: the default is compact, source returns complete JSON, and cursors are source/query-bound. It still omits details like response format for default summary or limit behavior, but it adds useful context beyond annotations.

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 short and front-loads the default behavior. The view-specific guidance is compressed but mostly clear, with only minor awkwardness in the fragmented sentences.

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 5-parameter read tool with no output schema and many siblings, the description covers most view outputs and cursor semantics. However, it omits the description view, limit behavior, and guidance on when this tool is preferable to list_drawings, preview_drawing, or check_drawing.

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 low at 20%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the view modes, how ids pair with elements, and cursor binding, but it does not explain limit, and the description view in the enum is not covered at all.

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 implies retrieval of drawing content by stating the default output is a compact document and graph summary, and it differentiates the available view modes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_drawings, preview_drawing, or check_drawing.

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?

It gives view-level guidance, e.g. use view elements with ids to read selected elements and view graph for semantic records and connections. However, it gives no tool-level when-to-use guidance versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites.

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