vw2d_structure

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

The readOnlyHint already declares safety, and the description adds substantive behavioral detail about what is inspected: none-class objects, unused classes, empty layers, by-class violations, misplaced dimensions/texts, and inconsistent layer scales. It does not describe output format or scope limits, but it goes well beyond the 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 dense but front-loaded with the core resource and then enumerates diagnostic categories. The parenthetical list is long, but every item adds concrete meaning; the single usage sentence is also purposeful.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema diagnostic tool, the description gives enough detail about what categories of information and problems it reports. It could specify scope (e.g., active document) or output shape, but an agent can confidently call it based on the current text.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly does not waste space discussing nonexistent inputs.

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 states the specific resource analyzed: document layers and classes, including object/class membership, class attributes, and organization problems. It clearly distinguishes itself from simple list tools like vw_list_layers and vw_list_classes by focusing on structural diagnostics, though it lacks an explicit leading verb such as 'analyze' or 'report'.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'Read this before drawing so new objects follow the document's structure.' That tells the agent when to call it, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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