open_drawing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds genuinely useful state info — that opening replaces the previously open drawing — which aligns with idempotentHint=false. It omits failure behavior (unsupported file, missing path) and whether view state like layers/marks is reset.

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?

Two tersely worded sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. Phrasing like 'the drawing open before' is slightly awkward but costs no comprehension.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the core behavior is conveyed. Still missing are the post-open state (what the viewport shows, whether prior marks/layers persist) and error conditions, which an agent would want before calling it in a workflow.

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 100% and the single `path` parameter is fully documented with accepted formats (.dxf, .dwg, Gerber/Excellon, folders, zips). The description adds nothing about the path, so baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Open a drawing') plus the scope of the result ('show the whole of it'), which distinguishes it from sibling view-manipulation tools like zoom_window or zoom_extents. It stops short of naming an explicit sibling or exhaustion of alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

The implication is that this is the entry point before inspecting or measuring a drawing, and 'Replaces the drawing open before' hints at session workflow. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings (e.g. inspect, find, layers) or what happens if a drawing is already open.

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