draw_polygon

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 but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this creates a new graphical element, modifies an existing one, requires specific context (like an active canvas), has side effects, or what happens after drawing. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a critical gap in behavioral information.

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?

While technically concise (a single 3-word phrase), this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load important information and fails to provide the minimal context needed for tool selection. A truly concise description would still include essential differentiating information.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no behavioral context, no usage guidance, no differentiation from alternatives, and relies entirely on the schema for parameter documentation. The description fails to address the complexity of the tool's 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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% description coverage. All 7 parameters (points, fill, stroke, strokeWidth, opacity, id, class) are documented in the schema with clear descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation entirely through the schema, with no added value from 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 '다각형을 그립니다' (Draws a polygon) is a tautology that restates the tool name 'draw_polygon' without providing additional specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling drawing tools like draw_circle, draw_rect, or draw_regular_polygon, nor does it clarify what makes a polygon different from a polyline or other shapes.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling drawing tools available (draw_circle, draw_rect, draw_polyline, draw_regular_polygon, etc.), there's no indication of when a polygon is appropriate versus other shape types or what distinguishes this tool from draw_polyline or draw_regular_polygon.

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