Inspect a DXF drawing to report its version, entity count and type distribution, bounding box, and layer list. Use it to quickly assess CAD file structure before editing or rendering.
检查一张 DXF 图纸：DXF 版本、实体总数与类型分布、包围盒、图层列表。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates the inspected outputs (version, entity count, type distribution, bounding box, layers), which implies a non-mutating read, but never states that the drawing is not modified, what happens on a missing/invalid path, or any auth/permission requirement.
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?
One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the specific information returned. No filler.
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, the enumeration of returned fields (version, entity counts, type distribution, bounding box, layer list) usefully substitutes for a return-value spec. The gap is the undocumented path parameter, which nothing else in the definition covers.
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% and the single 'path' parameter has no description in the schema. The description adds nothing about what path refers to (file path vs. drawing name, relative vs. absolute, expected extension), leaving the only input undocumented.
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+resource ('检查一张 DXF 图纸') and enumerates what is inspected (version, entity count/type distribution, bounding box, layers). This is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like dxf_create and dxf_draw, though it never names them explicitly.
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 statement of when to use this versus dxf_dimensions, dxf_layers, or the other inspection-adjacent siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.