drawing_legibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses what is inspected, the exact return shape ({ok, violations, labels, segments, views}), the meaning of ok=True, and the non-obvious rule that inspection balloons are treated as placed labels. It omits whether the operation is read-only/side-effect-free and any permission or rendering prerequisites.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then layered detail on the parameter and return contract. Every sentence adds information, though the prose is somewhat dense and could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return shape and violation codes, and with no annotations it adequately conveys behavior and the inspection scope. Only the read-only nature and invocation preconditions are left unstated.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains min_gap well (mm, 'breathing room between two labels') beyond the schema's bare type/default, but the required `page` parameter is left completely undefined (though it is largely self-evident). Partial compensation only.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (legibility gate over placed drawing graphics) and enumerates the exact failure modes it detects: overlapping labels, dimension lines crossing unrelated views, and out-of-border items. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling drawing_gate and other drawing tools without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied — it operates 'on the ACTUAL placed graphics', suggesting a post-placement check — but the description never states when to prefer it over the similar sibling drawing_gate, nor any preconditions or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer the trigger from context.

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