drawing

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

While annotations only include readOnlyHint=false, the description adds operation-specific behaviors such as save's fallback to QSAVE when no path is given and open requiring an existing drawing. It does not detail destructive side effects for purge or plot_pdf, but it provides more than the raw 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 a compact bulleted list with one-line explanations for each operation, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No redundant text.

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?

The tool is complex with ten sub-operations, and the description covers each operation's purpose and data fields. However, it omits the include_screenshot parameter and does not explicitly guide usage relative to sibling tools, but the output schema likely covers return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing operation-specific data fields (e.g., data: {path} for open, data: {names: [...]} for get_variables). However, the include_screenshot parameter is not documented, leaving a 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as 'Drawing file management' and enumerates ten specific operations (create, open, info, save, etc.) with brief explanations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like layer and entity.

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?

The description implies usage through 'Drawing file management' and operation names, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like layer or entity. It provides context but no exclusions or direct comparisons.

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