annotate_grid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only says 'Visualize.' It does not disclose whether this is read-only, whether it creates persistent annotations on the frame, what it returns, or whether it modifies the design. The behavioral profile is underspecified for a tool that may add visual annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to explain what calling this tool does and what the caller should expect. It does neither beyond a vague visualization intent. Missing details include whether the tool returns computed grid information, creates visible annotations, or requires specific frame types.

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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('Frame to annotate' and 'Grid size to overlay'). The description adds no information about nodeId or gridSize beyond that, keeping this at the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Visualize') and names a concrete resource ('the underlying grid and spacing system of a frame'), so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like annotate_spacing, but the focus on 'grid' gives enough distinction to be useful.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as annotate_spacing, create_measurement, or create_spec_sheet. The description implies it is for visualizing grid/spacing, but it provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing it over similar annotation tools.

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