draw_regular_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. It states the action ('draws') but doesn't disclose key traits like whether this creates a new object in a drawing application, modifies existing elements, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., adding to a history). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 10 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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a shape object, success status, or error), behavioral aspects like idempotency or side effects, or how it integrates with sibling tools in a drawing application context. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for reliable invocation.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 10 parameters with descriptions like '중심 X 좌표' (center X coordinate). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a regular polygon is drawn, which is already clear from the tool name and schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 '정다각형을 그립니다' (Draws a regular polygon) clearly states the verb and resource, but it's vague about the context (e.g., where it's drawn, such as in an SVG or canvas). It distinguishes from siblings like 'draw_polygon' by specifying 'regular', but doesn't fully clarify the difference in usage or output format.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'draw_polygon' or 'draw_circle'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an active drawing surface or specific application state, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling names alone.

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