read_svg

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states that the tool does not rasterize vectors (a critical non-destructive behavior), lists the specific output fields (element_counts, text_content, title/description), and enumerates possible failures (PATH_NOT_FOUND, NOT_A_FILE, etc.). This fully discloses operational behavior without contradicting 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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and a concise note on rendering limitations. It is not overly verbose, and the core purpose is stated first. The only minor inefficiency is the redundancy of repeating file_path in Args when the schema already documents it, but overall the structure is efficient and scannable.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (ReadSvgResponse), the description is exhaustive. It covers the input, output fields, potential error conditions, and a key behavioral limitation. Including the Raises section ensures the agent knows what failures to anticipate. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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?

There is only one parameter (file_path) and the input schema already provides a full description ('읽을 .svg 파일 경로'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description repeats the same information in the Args section without adding new semantics like format constraints or examples. Since the schema carries the burden, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it extracts SVG size, per-tag structure statistics, and text elements. The verb '추출한다' (extracts) plus the specific resource (SVG) makes the purpose precise and distinct from sibling tools like read_pdf or read_docx, which target different formats.

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 explains that SVG is XML and can be understood without rendering, and importantly notes that it does not rasterize vectors, so diagrams with little text can only be gauged via element_counts. This gives strong context for when to use the tool and what limitations to expect, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is sufficient for an agent to decide appropriately.

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