draw_arrow

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 discloses the geometric behavior (draws an arrowed line, arrow points to endpoint) but does not mention side effects (e.g., modifying a canvas), coordinate system, or arrow styling. This adds some value but leaves significant behavioral context unaddressed.

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 a single concise sentence in Chinese, front-loading the key action and distinguishing feature. No unnecessary words or repetition; it earns its place.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only a minimal description. It does not mention return values, prerequisites (like an active canvas), coordinate system, or potential side effects. Given the tool's mutating nature and lack of structured support, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the operation's context.

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 has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does by implying that the second point (x2,y2) is the endpoint since the arrow points to the endpoint. However, it does not explicitly name or explain each parameter's role beyond this hint, which is minimal compensation for 0% schema 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 that the tool draws an arrowed line between two points with the arrow pointing to the endpoint. This specifies the action, the resource (arrowed line), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like draw_line (without arrow) and draw_box.

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 when to use the tool (when an arrowed line between two points is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No guidance on when not to use this tool versus draw_line or other siblings is provided.

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