get_drawing_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the field list, which the output schema already conveys, and says nothing about caching, freshness, or failure when no drawing is active.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler; the returned fields are front-loaded. It is efficient, though as a bare field inventory it reads more like a schema blurb than a description.

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 an output schema present, required parameters at zero, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to frame what the tool is for. It does that adequately, though it leaves unaddressed when to prefer it over cad_status or other inspection tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-argument tool is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required.

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 the specific resource (the active drawing) and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, path, units, current layer, entity count, extents), so an agent can tell what it gets back. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from similar read tools such as cad_status or list_layers, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no mention of alternatives, even though sibling tools like cad_status and list_entities overlap in scope. The agent is left to infer that this is the metadata query for the current drawing.

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