draw_rectangle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait that the rectangle is a closed polyline, which is useful. However, it does not describe side effects such as whether the rectangle is added to the current layer, coordinate system assumptions, or any potential destructive actions. It is adequate but minimal for a simple draw 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 that is front-loaded with the essential purpose. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy with the schema or annotations. It is an excellent example of minimal but meaningful documentation.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose and parameter meaning, but it lacks details about coordinate system, layer behavior, and how it differs from similar tools. While the output schema explains return values, the description could be more complete for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional assumptions.

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%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'between opposite corners' gives semantic meaning to the corner coordinates (x1,y1,x2,y2), but it does not explicitly map them to parameter names or explain the layer parameter. With 5 parameters and only partial coverage, the description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Rectangle (closed polyline) between opposite corners' clearly states the tool creates a rectangle as a closed polyline, which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like draw_line, draw_circle, and draw_polyline. It also adds the key detail that the rectangle is a closed polyline, clarifying the entity type.

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 implies usage for drawing a rectangle but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rounded_rect or polygon. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance is only implicit from the name and description.

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