Summarise a DXF drawing

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 'Runs locally' and adds supported format scope (ASCII, R12 to current) plus graceful DWG detection. The one gap is that the schema allows http(s) URLs, so the 'runs locally' framing does not mention that remote sources are fetched, which is a behavioral detail an agent would want.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and output contents, then usage, then the edge case. No sentence is redundant and the DWG caveat is placed last where it is least disruptive.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of enumerating return values and does so thoroughly. The only shortfall is that it does not mention URL-based sources despite the schema permitting them, which is a small omission for a tool whose remote behavior is otherwise described as local.

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 both `source` and `maxTexts` are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of 'the text found on it (room names, labels, title block)' gives useful context on what maxTexts governs but adds no new syntax or limits 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?

States a specific verb and resource (read/summarise a DXF drawing) and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: DXF version, units, per-layer entity counts, entity types, extents and extracted text. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling open_drawings, which is named as the downstream placement step.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('to tell what a drawing contains before placing it next to a model with open_drawings') and what to do when the input is unsupported ('DWG is detected but not read: ask the user to save it as DXF'). Both the positive case and the fallback are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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