outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (adding pixels around non-transparent areas) and default color, but does not mention side effects like overwriting existing pixels, layer/frame targeting, or undo behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a useful default value. Every word earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives the core purpose but omits context like whether it applies to the active layer/frame if unspecified, or how the 'outside' parameter behaves. Adequate for basic selection, but incomplete for nuanced invocation.

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 coverage is 50%, with descriptions for color and outside only. The description adds little beyond the schema—only reiterating the default color. Frame and layer parameters remain undefined in both schema and description, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 states the tool's action ('Add a pixel outline') and its specific scope ('around non-transparent pixels'). This distinguishes it from sibling drawing tools like draw_rect or draw_line, and the mention of default color adds precision.

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 outlining sprite pixels but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools exist for other drawing operations, but no direct comparison or guidance is given.

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