create_ascii_art

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain how content is interpreted, how width is applied, whether style affects non-box types, or what output format is returned. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and lists examples, making it extremely concise and free of waste. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, parameter interactions (e.g., style with non-box types), or edge cases, leaving the context incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter is described in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the enum and parameter descriptions, so it meets the baseline for schema-heavy tools but adds no additional value.

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 uses the specific verb 'Generate' and identifies the resource 'ASCII art' with explicit types (boxes, flowcharts, tables, trees, sequence diagrams). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_diagram, list_diagrams, open_in_monodraw, and get_diagram_preview, which focus on management and export rather than creation.

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 implies creation is the primary use case, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, leaving usage context to be inferred from the different verbs in sibling names.

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