analyze_svg

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only intent via 'Analyze' but does not disclose what the output looks like, whether it modifies anything, or any limitations. The minimal wording fails to give the agent a clear picture of the tool's runtime 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, concise sentence that avoids redundancy. It directly states the tool's purpose and output, with no wasted words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should at least hint at the returning structure or format, but it does not. Additionally, the sibling tool's existence suggests a workflow context that is unaddressed, leaving the description incomplete for practical use.

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 input schema has 100% coverage; the only parameter, svgPath, is described as 'Path to the SVG file to analyze', which is sufficient. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, but baseline 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 action ('Analyze an SVG file') and the intended output ('suggest Marp presentation structure'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool convert_svg_to_marp by emphasizing the suggestion/analysis aspect rather than direct conversion.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling convert_svg_to_marp. It only states what it does, leaving the when-to-use decision entirely implicit.

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