autocad_get_document_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered. The description's added behavioral content is largely the return shape (mostly duplicated by the existing output schema), with only the 'extents ... | null' nuance being genuinely new; no auth or rate-limit context is given.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose sentence, usage sentence, then a Returns block, with no filler. The explicit Returns section is somewhat redundant given an output schema already exists, costing a little on strict economy.

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 parameterless, read-only, idempotent summary tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly, including the 'call first' sequencing cue. No meaningful gap remains.

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 per the baseline there is no parameter semantics to clarify; the empty schema is self-evident. The description makes no misleading param claims, warranting the 0-param baseline of 4.

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 (summarize) and resource (active drawing) and enumerates the fields it reports: backend, units, layers, entity count, extents. It is distinguishable from narrow siblings like autocad_list_layers, though it does not explicitly address the overlap with autocad_connection_status, which also reports backend state.

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?

Gives a clear, actionable directive: 'Use this first to learn which backend is active and what the drawing contains,' establishing the orientation context. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it, but the sequencing guidance is strong.

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