draw_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers meaningful behavioral details: it materializes as a block, creates the definition once then inserts on subsequent calls, auto-scales by drawing units, and warns that rotation must be a float in degrees. It does not cover all side effects, but the key behavioral traits are well 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?

The description is four short sentences, each providing a distinct piece of information: purpose, block behavior, scaling, and a critical rotation warning. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler.

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?

Despite good behavioral transparency, the description omits usage guidance and parameter semantics for most optional fields, and the existence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing invocation context. An agent would need to guess how scale, label, layer, mirror, and create_layer behave, so the description is not complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, and the description only explains (x, y) coordinates, rotation as float degrees, and implicitly 'name' as the catalog identifier. It leaves label, layer, mirror, create_layer, and importantly the scale parameter's interaction with auto-scaling unexplained, which is a significant gap for a 9-parameter tool.

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: drawing a catalog reference as a block, using the specific verb 'Dibuja' and resource 'referencia del catalogo'. It distinguishes itself from other drawing tools by emphasizing catalog references and block/insertion semantics, though it does not directly name sibling alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; sibling tools like insert_block, draw_from_library, or draw_rectangle are never mentioned, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only implied usage is for catalog references, which is weak guidance.

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