ellipse

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic drawing action and mentions outline/filled, but fails to describe side effects, permissions required, or behaviors related to parameters like clip, ignore_symmetry, or render. This is inadequate for a tool with 12 parameters.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words, though it sacrifices clarity on non-essential details. For a simple tool this is effective, but for one with many parameters it is slightly too sparse.

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?

Given the tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect on the document, how layers and frames interact, or what the tool returns. Important context about clip behavior, symmetry, and rendering is omitted.

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 description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like cx, cy, rx, ry, and filled. With schema description coverage at 58%, the description does not compensate for undocumented parameters nor clarifies how parameters like clip or layer affect behavior.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Draw', the resource 'ellipse', and specifies the center coordinates (cx,cy) and radii (rx,ry) along with the outline or filled distinction. This clearly differentiates from sibling drawing tools like line and rect.

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, such as rect or flood_fill. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or context that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool over others.

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