draw_circle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '원을 그립니다' only states the action without revealing whether this creates a new object, modifies existing ones, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on execution. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 with just three Korean characters, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. Every character serves the core purpose statement without waste, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it interacts with the drawing context, or provide any behavioral context. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters. Since schema_description_coverage is high, the baseline score is 3 even without additional parameter semantics in the 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?

The description '원을 그립니다' (draws a circle) states the basic action but lacks specificity about what resource it acts upon (e.g., an SVG canvas or drawing context) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling drawing tools like draw_ellipse or draw_rect. It's a vague purpose statement that doesn't provide enough context for the agent to understand the tool's scope.

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 like draw_ellipse or draw_rect, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. There's no indication of when this tool is appropriate or when other tools might be better suited.

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