Ase Draw Circle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Draw a circle' implies modification of the sprite, but it does not state whether existing pixels are overwritten, whether the operation is destructive, how colors are interpreted, or what happens if coordinates are out of bounds. The description is too thin to inform an agent about side effects.

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 short, which is concise, and front-loads the core action. The parenthetical adds value by clarifying the 'filled' option. However, it is under-specified to the point of being terse rather than efficiently informative, so it is only minimally acceptable.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and many sibling tools, this description is severely incomplete. It omits essential information about coordinate systems, color formats, frame/layer targeting, and rendering behavior. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly from the description alone.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the 8 parameters, but it only hints at the 'filled' boolean ('filled or outline'). It does not explain sprite_path, center_x, center_y, radius, color, frame, or layer semantics. This is far from adequate for an agent to construct valid calls.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Draw a circle', which is distinct from sibling tools like ase_draw_line and ase_draw_rectangle. The parenthetical '(filled or outline)' adds a key nuance that maps to the 'filled' parameter. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other ase_draw_* tools beyond the shape name, so it is clear but not fully sibling-aware.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description says nothing about suitable contexts, such as when a user wants a basic shape vs. a more complex drawing operation, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. With many sibling draw tools, an agent has no basis to decide between them.

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