draw_rect

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. It states 'draws a rectangle' but doesn't explain what happens after drawing (e.g., adds to a canvas/SVG, returns an object ID, requires a specific context like an active layer). There's no mention of side effects, permissions, or error conditions, making it insufficient for a tool with 12 parameters.

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—a single Korean sentence. It's front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words. While it's under-specified, it earns full marks for brevity and structure as every word serves the minimal purpose.

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 (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's context (e.g., part of an SVG editor), what it returns, or behavioral traits. The high parameter count and lack of annotations mean the description should do more to compensate, but it fails to provide necessary context for effective use.

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%, with each parameter clearly documented in Korean (e.g., coordinates, dimensions, colors). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in 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 '사각형을 그립니다' (Draws a rectangle) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'draw_rect'. It doesn't specify what kind of rectangle (SVG graphic, canvas element, etc.) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'draw_rounded_rect_path' or 'draw_polygon'. The purpose is minimally stated but lacks specificity and differentiation.

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 (e.g., draw_circle, draw_polygon, draw_rounded_rect_path), but no indication of when a rectangle is preferred over other shapes or which tool handles rounded rectangles specifically. This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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