swdraw_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key safety trait ('read-only'). However, it says nothing about permissions, side effects, or behavior of the probes, so the coverage remains partial.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the safety trait before the value list. Its terseness borders on under-specification, but structurally it is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the read-only nature is stated. Still, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, an agent gets no guidance on when to choose this over validation siblings or what the discriminator strings fully imply.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully enumerates the valid 'what' values ('views', 'selection', 'annotations', 'refs') and hints that 'refs' pairs with args.paths, but it doesn't define the expected format of 'what' or clarify args for the other values.

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 ('probes') and resource ('the active drawing') and enumerates the probe targets ('views', 'selection', 'annotations', 'refs'). The 'read-only' framing also separates it from mutating siblings like build_drawing or revise, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named (e.g., vs swdraw_validate_spec). The agent can infer read-only inspection is intended, but selection conditions are left entirely implicit.

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