draw_polyline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('draws a line'). It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this creates a new SVG element, modifies an existing one, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., adds to history), or error conditions (e.g., invalid points). For a drawing 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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean ('여러 점을 연결하는 선을 그립니다'), with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action but could be more structured (e.g., by mentioning it's for SVG drawing). Every sentence earns its place, though it's under-specified rather than concise.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover the tool's context (e.g., part of an SVG editor), return values (e.g., the drawn element), or error handling. For a moderately complex drawing tool with rich parameters but no structured support, the description should do more to compensate.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'points' as coordinate array, 'stroke' as color). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., 'fill' typically 'none' for polylines) or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 '여러 점을 연결하는 선을 그립니다' (draws a line connecting multiple points) states the basic action and resource (points/line), but is vague about the drawing context (SVG/canvas) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'draw_line' (single line) or 'draw_path' (more complex curves). It's not tautological but lacks specificity compared to alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'draw_line' (for two points) or 'draw_path' (for Bézier curves). The description implies usage for connecting multiple points but doesn't specify exclusions (e.g., not for closed shapes like 'draw_polygon') or prerequisites (e.g., requires an active drawing context).

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