drawing_generate

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

Annotations are absent, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'unverified' but does not explain side effects (e.g., file overwrites, resource consumption, authentication needs) or whether operations are read-only or destructive.

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 single sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It front-loads the key output, but omits needed details, making brevity a trade-off rather than a structural strength.

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?

Given the nested object parameter and lack of schema descriptions, the description is radically incomplete. It does not explain the input contract, output schema, or how this tool fits with siblings like drawing_compare or export_bundle.

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 sole parameter 'contract' is an opaque object with no schema description (0% coverage) and no hints in the tool description. The agent receives no information about its structure, required fields, or purpose.

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 states the tool's action (generate) and output format (unverified R2013 DXF and SVG preview), distinguishing it from sibling tools like drawing_verify or design_contract_draft.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

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