Opens DXF or DWG drawing files in the locally installed AutoCAD app on macOS, enabling you to view or edit drawings without manually locating the application.
把 DXF（或 DWG）文件打开到本机的 AutoCAD（macOS open 调用）。
Args: path: 要打开的图纸文件。 prefer: 可选，指定优先使用的 .app 路径（默认自动选择 /Applications/Autodesk 下的 AutoCAD，完整版优先）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| prefer | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the mechanism (macOS `open` invocation) and the default app-selection behavior for `prefer`, but it does not state prerequisites such as AutoCAD being installed, what happens on failure, or whether the call blocks/returns.
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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by concise per-argument notes. Nothing is padded, though the argument block could be slightly tighter.
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 simple two-parameter launcher with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core action and both parameters, including the default selection behavior. It is close to complete, missing only prerequisite/error-handling context, which is a minor gap for this tool's low complexity.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: `path` is described as the drawing file to open, and `prefer` is explained as an optional preferred .app path with the default auto-selection rule (AutoCAD under /Applications/Autodesk, full version preferred). This adds real meaning beyond the bare parameter titles.
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: opening DXF (or DWG) files into the local AutoCAD. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dxf_read/dxf_render by clarifying that this launches AutoCAD via a macOS `open` call, but it never explicitly names or contrasts an alternative tool.
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 description explains what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing it over dxf_read or dxf_render, and no exclusions. Usage context is only implied by the purpose sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.