draw_circle

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, but it only states the geometric parameters. It does not reveal whether a new entity is created, how the layer parameter is applied, what happens with invalid inputs (e.g., negative radius), or what the operation returns. This is minimal behavioral context 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 extremely concise at seven words, front-loaded with 'Circle,' and contains no filler. It is efficient, though perhaps overly terse, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 existence of an output schema (though not provided) and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the layer parameter, coordinate system, units, or return behavior, and it does not reference sibling tools for differentiation. For a simple tool this might suffice, but the missing parameter context and lack of behavioral detail create gaps.

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 by interpreting 'cx, cy' as center coordinates and 'radius' as the circle's radius, which partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. However, it omits the 'layer' parameter entirely, which has a default but no explanation of its purpose or allowed values.

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 states 'Circle at (cx,cy) with radius,' which clearly indicates a circle-drawing operation with center coordinates and radius. Though it lacks an explicit verb, the tool name 'draw_circle' makes the action obvious, and it distinguishes from siblings like draw_ellipse and draw_arc by specifying center/radius.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draw_donut, bolt_circle, or draw_ellipse. It does not mention any specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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