center_mark

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and coordinates, but does not mention side effects like adding an entity to the current drawing, layer behavior, or return values, which are important for a drawing tool.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and location, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Although the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description leaves gaps in parameter semantics and behavioral expectations. The defaults for size and layer are visible in the schema, but their purpose is not explained, and no usage context is provided relative to sibling tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only explains x and y. The size and layer parameters are left entirely unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation for those parameters.

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 creates a center-mark cross at a given (x,y) coordinate, which is a specific resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling drawing tools by naming a unique annotation type, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'draw'.

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 about when to use center_mark versus similar tools such as draw_point or bolt_circle. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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