vizcom_download_drawing

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true and destruct=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by setting expectations on output fidelity — the result is the preview as currently stored, not a layered full-resolution export — which is exactly the kind of fact annotations cannot convey. It omits return format (file bytes vs. URL) and any auth requirements.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core capability stated first and the disambiguating constraint second. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value; it partly does so by characterizing the content as a stored preview, but says nothing about the payload form or size. For a single-parameter download tool this is adequate but leaves a real gap.

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 0% and the description never mentions drawingId, its uuid format, or where an agent should obtain a valid drawing id. With one required, undocumented parameter, the description leaves the caller dependent entirely on the bare schema property name.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'Download the board drawing preview' — and immediately scopes it against a different notion of export ('not a full-resolution layered Studio export'). An agent can distinguish it from vizcom_download_result without extra context, though it never names that sibling directly.

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 negative clause ('not a full-resolution layered Studio export') implies when this tool is the wrong choice, but it never names the alternative tool or states the positive condition for choosing this preview download over a full export. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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