slot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It explains the geometric shape (rounded-end slot between arc centers with width) and warns against mistaking it for a rectangle, but it does not disclose whether the result is a polyline, block, or other entity type, nor does it mention layer 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 two sentences: the first defines the shape and its geometric construction, and the second provides usage guidance. There is no redundancy, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple drawing primitive with an output schema available, the description is largely sufficient: it gives the geometric definition and clarifies when to use it. Minor omissions like the default layer and output entity type are not critical given the tool's low complexity.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description adds meaning by tying geometric parameters to concepts: x1/y1 and x2/y2 are arc centers, and width is the slot width. The optional layer parameter remains undocumented, but the core parameters are semantically explained.

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 slot/obround, defining it as a rounded-end slot between two arc centers with a given width. It also explicitly states 'Use this for slots - NOT a rectangle,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like draw_rectangle.

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 provides direct usage guidance: 'Use this for slots' and a clear exclusion: 'NOT a rectangle.' It does not mention other potential alternatives like rounded_rect or polyline, but the primary use case is well defined.

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