draw_image

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. '이미지를 삽입합니다' implies a mutation (inserting an image), but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the image URL is invalid, if there are rate limits, or the format of any output. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single sentence, but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficient. It's front-loaded but lacks necessary detail, so it doesn't fully earn its place. While not verbose, it fails to provide essential context, making it less effective.

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 complexity (9 parameters, 5 required, mutation tool) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose in context, usage scenarios, or behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly. The high schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for the lack of overall 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how parameters like 'preserveAspectRatio' affect the image insertion). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 '이미지를 삽입합니다' (inserts an image) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'draw_image' in Korean. It provides no additional specificity about what resource is being inserted (e.g., into an SVG canvas or document) or how it differs from sibling drawing tools like draw_circle or draw_rect. While it uses a verb+resource structure, it lacks the differentiation needed for a higher score.

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 no explicit instructions, implied contexts, or exclusions mentioned. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., other drawing tools like draw_circle, export functions), this absence of usage guidelines is a significant gap, making it misleading for an agent trying to select the right tool.

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