get_draw_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the core output (a fixed ordering for side-view composition), which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not state that the tool is read-only, mention side effects, or clarify whether the order depends on current state. Since the description communicates the primary behavior but lacks explicit safety or state details, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise phrase that front-loads the essential information (the specific draw order). Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or extraneous 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?

Given the tool is a simple 0-parameter query with an output schema, the description adequately conveys the returned content. However, it lacks usage context, such as when this order is relevant in the composition pipeline or how it relates to other tools, which slightly reduces completeness from an agent's operational perspective.

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 has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. Per calibration, 0 params warrant a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 identifies the tool as providing the side-view draw order and lists the specific sequence (far limbs, torso/head, near legs, near arms). It uses a specific resource and scope, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, making it slightly less distinct than a fully differentiated definition.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like compose_character or get_outfit_plan. The description only states what the order is, not the context or prerequisites for calling it, leaving the agent to infer when it applies.

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