rounded_rect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses that the result is a 'single polyline,' which is a useful behavioral detail. It does not mention coordinate semantics, layer handling, or whether the shape is closed, leaving significant gaps.

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 short sentence that gets to the point. The parenthetical 'raccordato' is redundant but not harmful, making the description slightly less concise than it could be.

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 six parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context about how to use the tool, what the coordinates represent, or how the radius behaves, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use correctly.

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 does not explain any of the six parameters (x1, y1, x2, y2, radius, layer). With 0% schema coverage, the parameters are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to add any parameter meaning.

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 identifies the tool as creating a rectangle with rounded corners, which distinguishes it from plain rectangle or polyline siblings. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'draw' or 'create,' instead relying on a noun phrase, so it is not fully explicit.

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 such as draw_rectangle, draw_polyline, or slot. The description merely states what it is, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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