draw_heart

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. '그립니다' (draws) implies a creation/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify where the heart is drawn (e.g., on a canvas, in a document), whether it's interactive, what happens to existing elements, or any side effects like requiring specific permissions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.

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 moderate complexity (8 parameters, mutation implied) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and output details. With 100% schema coverage for parameters, it's not completely inadequate but has clear gaps in other areas.

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 8 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., cx as center X coordinate, size with minimum 0). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '하트 모양을 그립니다' (draws a heart shape). It uses a specific verb ('그립니다' - draws) and resource ('하트 모양' - heart shape), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling drawing tools like draw_circle or draw_rect, which would require a 5.

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. There are many sibling drawing tools (draw_circle, draw_rect, draw_star, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate when a heart shape is appropriate versus other shapes, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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