krita_draw_shapeDraw rectangle, ellipse, or line shapes on a Krita canvas by setting position, size, and fill or stroke options.
Draw rectangle|ellipse|line on the canvas; x2/y2 are line endpoints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| x2 | No | ||
| y2 | No | ||
| fill | No | ||
| shape | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| stroke | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that shapes are drawn on the canvas and that x2/y2 serve as line endpoints; it does not mention which layer receives the drawing, coordinate origin, pixel overwrite behavior, or undoability.
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 a single sentence with no filler, and the key parameter clarification is front-loaded. It is appropriately compact, though its brevity contributes to the overall completeness gap.
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?
With 9 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, this description is not sufficient for reliable invocation. Accepted shape strings, coordinate semantics, active layer behavior, and the relationship between width/height and x2/y2 are missing.
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, but it only clarifies x2/y2 as line endpoints and lists shape values. x/y positioning, width/height semantics, fill/stroke behavior, defaults, and the interaction between x2/y2 and width/height are all left unexplained.
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 uses a specific verb ('Draw') and resource ('canvas'), and enumerates three shape types (rectangle|ellipse|line), so an agent can understand the tool's core function. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling drawing tools like krita_stroke or ase_draw_rectangle, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 about when to prefer this tool over krita_stroke, krita_fill, or the many ase_draw_* siblings. The phrase 'Draw rectangle|ellipse|line' implies primitive-shape usage, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.