svg_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates something, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify what happens after creation (e.g., whether the canvas becomes active, if it's saved automatically, or if it requires subsequent export). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward creation tool and is front-loaded with the essential action. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, creation operation) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., what the output is, whether creation is immediate/permanent) and usage guidance. The high schema coverage helps, but for a creation tool with no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 5 parameters clearly documented in the schema (width, height, viewBox, background, preserveAspectRatio). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the action ('새 SVG 캔버스를 생성합니다' translates to 'creates a new SVG canvas') and identifies the resource (SVG canvas). It distinguishes from siblings like svg_open (opens existing SVG) and svg_resize (modifies existing canvas). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like layer_create or path_create, which is why it's not a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an empty workspace), when not to use it (e.g., when modifying existing canvases), or point to sibling tools like svg_open for existing files or svg_resize for dimension changes. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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