add_outline

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the effect (adding an outline) and parameter meanings, but omits critical behavioral details: whether the operation is destructive, how it interacts with existing pixels, if it requires a selection, or if it modifies all frames. The missing required parameters (filename, frame, layer) also obscure the tool's actual behavior.

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 concise and front-loads the purpose. The Args list is structured but incomplete, missing three parameters (filename, frame, layer). This structural flaw reduces effectiveness, though overall length is appropriate.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It explains only 4 parameters and omits the required filename and optional frame/layer. It does not describe return values, side effects, or how to specify the target sprite/layer, leaving the agent with incomplete context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description adds meaning for 4 of 7 parameters (color, thickness, connectivity, where) beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it fails to explain the required 'filename' and optional 'frame' and 'layer' parameters, which are essential for correct usage. This partial coverage limits the value added.

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 clearly states it adds a pixel outline around artwork on a layer, which distinguishes it from other drawing tools like 'draw_rectangle' or 'add_drop_shadow'. However, it does not explicitly mention that it operates on a specific sprite (via filename) or layer, leaving some ambiguity about the target.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not contrast with 'add_drop_shadow' or 'draw_line' to help an agent choose. The description also does not state prerequisites (e.g., a layer must exist) or when not to use it.

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