在地图上添加多边形区域（面积、边界），返回 entityId
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | No | 填充颜色（CSS 格式） | #3B82F6 |
| label | No | 多边形标注文本 | |
| opacity | No | 填充透明度（0~1） | |
| coordinates | Yes | 多边形外环坐标 [[lon, lat, height?], ...] | |
| outlineColor | No | 描边颜色 | #FFFFFF |
| clampToGround | No | 是否贴地 | |
| extrudedHeight | No | 拉伸高度（米），可用于创建立体效果 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are present but all false (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.). The description adds the fact that it returns an entityId, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it doesn't disclose any other behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or 3D mode requirements.
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 that efficiently communicates the core purpose and return value with no fluff or repetition.
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?
The description and schema together cover the essential information for invoking the tool, including parameter details and the return entityId. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., prerequisites like a loaded map) and potential edge cases, making it adequate but not highly complete.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it only mentions the action in general terms.
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 'Add polygon area (area, boundary) on the map, returns entityId', specifying the verb (add), resource (polygon), and the return value. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like addRectangle or addEllipse.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does, without mentioning conditions, exclusions, or relationships to other add* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools share conceptual boundaries (e.g., addMarker vs addBillboard vs addLabel, addPolyline vs addCorridor vs addWall, flyTo vs setView), though descriptions clarify most cases. The overlap is notable given the large tool count.
All tools use lowerCamelCase with a consistent verb-first pattern (add*, load*, set*, remove*, update*). Some generic verbs like control and update are reused, but the naming is predictable and readable.
43 tools is well beyond the recommended range. Many add* functions for different primitive types could be consolidated into one entity-creation tool, reducing bloat and cognitive load without sacrificing capability.
The tool set offers strong coverage across entities, layers, camera controls, and animations. Minor gaps include lack of entity information retrieval and direct geometry re-editing, but core workflows are well supported.