draw_bounding_box

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects, permissions, or behavior (e.g., whether the original image is modified, how output_path works, or any constraints).

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 with no redundancy; front-loaded with purpose. While it could benefit from more detail, it is not verbose. The efficiency earns a high score but misses opportunity to add context.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain how to use parameters like 'normalized' or 'output_path', nor the tool's return value. It fails to provide sufficient context for correct 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?

The schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to parameters. For example, it does not explain what 'bbox' coordinates represent (e.g., absolute vs normalized), nor the impact of 'color' or 'thickness' defaults.

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 it draws a bounding box on an image, identifying the verb and resource. It also mentions being a convenience wrapper around annotate, which hints at its relationship to a sibling, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other drawing tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like annotate or highlight_region. It only states it is a wrapper, without clarifying the trade-offs or preferred contexts.

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