draw_ellipse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '타원을 그립니다' indicates a creation/drawing operation but doesn't specify whether this adds to an existing canvas, creates a new document, requires specific context, or has side effects. For a drawing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unexplained.

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 Korean sentence ('타원을 그립니다') that's extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could benefit from slightly more context given the lack of annotations.

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?

For a drawing tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after drawing (e.g., adds to current layer, returns element ID), how it integrates with other tools, or any constraints. The high parameter count and lack of structured metadata require more descriptive context.

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 100%, with all 10 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., center coordinates, radii, styling attributes). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '타원을 그립니다' (draws an ellipse) states a clear verb+resource action, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling drawing tools like draw_circle, draw_rect, or draw_polygon. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique compared to other shape-drawing tools.

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_circle or draw_rect. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparative advantages. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and parameters.

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