Get drawing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return shape: a rendered PNG, accompanying metadata, extracted text, and DXF/SVG paths reported for CAD use. It does not cover failure modes (e.g. a non-CAD or invalid drawing id) or whether DXF/SVG paths are always present, which keeps it 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then a single routing clause to the sibling tool. Every clause (render format, metadata, extracted text, CAD file paths, PDF alternative) carries distinct information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain returns, and it does so thoroughly for a one-parameter tool. It stops short of describing error behavior or size/format limits, a minor gap for a read-only fetch.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented with examples pointing back to list_drawings. The description adds no further meaning about the id format or constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (return a CAD drawing) and enumerates exactly what comes back: PNG render of the DWG, metadata, extracted text, plus DXF/SVG file paths. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_page_image for PDF drawings, so an agent can route between the two without inspecting schemas.

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?

Names the alternative tool (get_page_image) and the condition that selects it (PDF drawings, using the document id). The required 'id' semantics are also anchored to list_drawings, giving the agent a clear entry path.

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