dung_cot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says a column is drawn but omits units, whether it is added to the current layer, whether the operation is reversible, and what the result is. Only the vi_tri meaning is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the one parameter clarification. It is tight, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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?

With 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain units, defaults, and dimensions. It covers only the anchor point, leaving an agent unable to confidently supply the remaining arguments.

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 6 parameters, yet the description only explains vi_tri as the [x, y] center. The remaining five (cao, sau, ten, rong, cao_do) are undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource: 'dung mot cot chu nhat' (draw a rectangular column), which distinguishes it from sibling draw tools like dung_tuong, dung_dam, dung_san. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dung_tuong or dung_dam, nor any prerequisites (e.g., which layer/view it operates in). Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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