draw_rectangle

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

No annotations are available, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It states the result (closed polyline) but omits important context such as whether the rectangle is added to an active drawing, how layers are handled, or any side effects. The description is purely definitional with no operational details.

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, compact sentence with no filler. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting actionable details, so while it is concise, it undersells the tool's functionality.

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 five parameters, no active drawing context mentioned, and an output schema that is not explained, the description is insufficient for safe and correct use. It does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., an open drawing), coordinate system, or return values, making it inadequate for a complex CAD tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the meaning of x1, y1, x2, y2 or the optional layer parameter. It mentions 'opposite corners' but does not explicitly map these to the coordinate parameters, leaving the agent to guess the correspondence.

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 function: creating a rectangle as a closed polyline between two opposite corners. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like draw_line or draw_circle, which create different geometry types.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draw_room or draw_wall. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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