draw_star

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('draws a star shape') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this creates a new SVG element, modifies an existing one, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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?

Extremely concise with a single Korean sentence ('별 모양을 그립니다') that directly states the purpose. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness for other dimensions.

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 (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the star is rendered, error conditions, or integration with the broader drawing context implied by sibling tools. For a parameter-rich drawing tool, more context is needed.

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 all 11 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., cx/cy as center coordinates, outerRadius/innerRadius for star proportions). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but doesn't compensate with additional context about how parameters interact or typical values.

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 '별 모양을 그립니다' (draws a star shape) states the basic purpose with a verb and resource, but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling drawing tools like draw_circle, draw_heart, or draw_regular_polygon. It doesn't specify what medium or context the star is drawn in (SVG canvas, image, etc.).

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like draw_regular_polygon (which could also create star-like shapes) or other shape-drawing siblings. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or any 'when-not-to-use' scenarios.

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