draw_orientation_test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates canvas state. The description usefully adds what is drawn and how to interpret the result, but says nothing about whether existing canvas content is preserved or cleared, or whether a canvas must exist first — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and the artifact, then gives the interpretation rule. No filler, nothing repeated from annotations or schema.

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 description carries the return-value burden and does so by explaining that the result is a visual frame plus 'F' a human reads. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool whose annotations cover the safety profile this is nearly complete, missing only the effect on pre-existing canvas content.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly describes a no-argument action.

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 (draws) plus the exact artifact produced (a frame around the canvas and an 'F' in the top-left corner), which is a purpose no sibling tool shares — draw_paths, draw_svg, draw_text and draw_scene all render user content, not a diagnostic overlay. An agent can identify this tool without opening the schema.

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 clause 'so a human can confirm the canvas orientation' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate, and the parenthetical 'F must read normally, top-left' states the success condition. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. use preview_* to check content without mutating the canvas), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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