design_pack_circles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the sampling algorithm and that results are returned as tuples + coverage, but says nothing about whether anything is committed to the canvas, determinism via `seed`, failure behavior when circles cannot be placed, or cost at high `count`.

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?

Two tight sentences: what it does first, what it returns second. No filler, no restating of the name.

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?

Seven undocumented parameters with no annotations and no output schema make this thin. The sentence about return values helpfully substitutes for a missing output schema, but key semantics (units, defaults, radius bounds interaction, seed determinism) are absent.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does not. 'Within a region' faintly maps to width/height, but count, padding, minRadius, maxRadius, and seed are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

A specific verb+resource: 'Pack non-overlapping circles within a region', plus the algorithm used. The sibling design_pack_rects is never mentioned, so the agent has to infer the circle-vs-rectangle distinction from the name alone.

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 on when to choose this over design_pack_rects, design_distribute_points, or design_tile_region, and no prerequisites or constraints (e.g., required canvas context). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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