polygon

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

Annotations are entirely absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool creates a new drawing entity, what layer it affects, whether it is additive or destructive, or any side effects. The phrase 'Regular polygon' is a geometric definition, not a description of tool behavior.

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 lists the essential defining parameters. No filler or repetition of the schema exists. It is appropriately front-loaded with the tool's purpose.

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 that an output schema exists, the return values may be documented there. However, the description lacks any statement about the effect on the drawing or prerequisites (e.g., active layer). For a simple drawing tool, it is minimally adequate but omits behavioral context that would help an agent predict side effects.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It adds valuable meaning by clarifying that the radius is circumscribed and that rotation is in degrees. It also implies that cx and cy define the center. However, it omits the 'layer' parameter entirely and does not specify constraints like positive sides or radius.

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 'Regular polygon: center, number of sides, circumscribed radius, rotation degrees' clearly identifies the resource (a regular polygon) and the defining parameters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like draw_polyline (arbitrary polylines) and draw_rectangle by specifying the regular polygon construction method (center, circumscribed radius, rotation). Though no explicit verb like 'draw' is used, the context of a CAD tool makes the intent evident.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool creates, not when it is appropriate (e.g., for regular polygons with circumscribed radius vs. inscribed or side-based). There is no mention of excluded cases or alternative tools such as draw_polyline or hatch_polygon.

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