draw_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without mentioning side effects like file modification, undoability, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., file existence). The description is too minimal for behavioral transparency.

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 clear sentence followed by an args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every piece of information serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 description covers parameter semantics well but lacks details about return values, error states, or behavioral context. Given no output schema and 7 parameters, it is adequate but not comprehensive. It would benefit from mentioning success indicators or failure modes.

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 explicitly explains each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'filename: The path to the Aseprite file'), which the schema lacks (0% coverage). This adds critical context beyond types and defaults, making it highly informative for an agent.

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 the tool draws a path using a polyline on a specific layer/frame. The verb 'draw' combined with 'path' and details about polyline make the action and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like draw_line, draw_rectangle, etc.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for simpler shapes. Sibling tools like draw_line, draw_polygon could be alternatives but are not referenced.

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