ass_drawing_to_svg

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

With no annotations the description carries the full load, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the target file 'is overwritten if it exists', path resolution rules ('resolved inside workspace.output_dir' or absolute), and the padding effect on the viewBox. It does not cover permissions or failure modes, but the destructive overwrite and path semantics are exactly the kind of trait an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and output location, then progressively details path data, padding, path semantics, and return shape. Every paragraph does work; the RST double-backtick noise is minor and nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be restated, and the description is complete on file/location behavior. But for a tool with five parameters at 0% schema coverage it omits any explanation of text, index, or doc_id, which is a real gap for a tool whose core job is selecting a drawing to export.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does: path (resolution, defaults, overwrite) and padding (viewBox growth) are explained well. However text, index, and doc_id receive no explanation at all, leaving the crucial question of how the source drawing is selected undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Export a drawing as a standalone .svg file in workspace.output_dir.' The direction of the operation (drawing -> svg) is unambiguous. It does not name the inverse sibling ass_svg_to_drawing, so there is no explicit sibling differentiation, but the purpose itself is clear.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as ass_get_drawing or ass_drawing_info. It explains how the output path resolves, but never says in what workflow or context this export should be chosen over the other drawing tools.

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