autocad_query_entities

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds value by disclosing filtering semantics, pagination mechanics, and the has_more/next_offset continuation contract. It does not state failure behavior (e.g., no open document) or total-cost characteristics, so it stops short of a 5.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded with the purpose and filters, and the Args/Returns docstring is scannable with no filler. The Returns block partially duplicates the output schema, which is minor redundancy rather than padding.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description supplies the missing operational context: filter options, pagination loop, and result keys. It is nearly complete, lacking only edge-case or error disclosure for a read tool of this complexity.

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?

Despite the reported 0% schema coverage, the description documents every argument's meaning, including the default page size, the 1-500 cap, the offset pagination intent, and the accepted entity-type tokens. It adds real semantics beyond the raw schema, though it omits invalid-type or invalid-layer handling.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('List entities in the drawing') plus the filtering scope. It clearly differs from singular readers like autocad_get_entity, though it never names a sibling to route between them 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?

Usage is implied by 'optionally filtered by layer or type' and the documented paging arguments, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus autocad_get_entity or autocad_list_layers. An agent must infer the selection context.

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