Drawing: Critique (premium quality checks)

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

Annotations already establish this tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: it returns '[ ]' for clean drawings and is a required check before finalization. This is meaningful operational context the annotations do not convey.

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 tightly written sentences. The first states the action and high-level result; the second gives the critical gate requirement. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given the safe read-only annotations, a fully documented single parameter, and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. It could be slightly stronger by naming sibling alternatives explicitly, but nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema already fully documents the single 'focus' parameter, including accepted values and the default behavior. The description adds no extra parameter detail, so the 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 clear verb-resource pair ('Run premium-quality checks') and defines the expected result for a clean drawing. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like drawing_audit or validation_check, but the 'premium-quality' and production-gate framing gives enough identity.

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?

Provides a concrete usage rule: it is the standard production gate and must return [] before drawing_finalize. It does not enumerate alternatives or say when not to use it, but the gate statement gives actionable context.

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