svg_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While '조회합니다' (retrieves) implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose what specific information is returned, whether there are any side effects, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, and the information is front-loaded 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context about what specific canvas information is returned. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally specify what '정보' (information) includes - dimensions, metadata, current state, etc. - to be complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't incorrectly mention parameters that don't exist.

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 ('조회합니다' meaning 'retrieves/inquires') and resource ('현재 캔버스의 정보' meaning 'current canvas information'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'object_list' or 'layer_list' that might also retrieve information about different aspects of the SVG editor.

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. With many sibling tools that retrieve information (like 'object_list', 'layer_list', 'history_list'), there's no indication whether this tool provides broader canvas metadata, summary information, or something distinct from those other listing tools.

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