그림 예제 읽기

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior the annotations do not: an empty name degrades to a listing operation, and there is a defined failure-recovery path. It does not describe the shape of a returned example (e.g. full TikZ source vs. summary), which is the main remaining gap for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines with no filler: purpose, example, failure recovery. The telegraphic phrasing ("No name: list them") is slightly clipped and the example sits before the parameter rule it illustrates, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the empty-argument case, and error recovery — enough to invoke it correctly. What return values actually look like is only implied by "examples... to adapt", which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single parameter as "category/name; empty = list". The description's example call {"name": "circuits/rc_series"} and the "No name: list them" line restate that same semantics rather than adding new information, so this sits at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Read verified figure examples") and enumerates the covered domains (circuits, physics, math, diagrams). It also positions the tool relative to a named sibling, render_tikz, so an agent can distinguish the read/reference side from the render side without opening either schema.

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?

It gives a clear moment of use ("to adapt before render_tikz") and covers two edge conditions: no name means list everything, and on failure pick an exact name from the list. It stops short of stating when this tool should NOT be used or naming any alternative beyond the sequencing with render_tikz.

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