Trace Boundary

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining key behaviors: nearest-enclosing-loop selection, edge splitting on crossings, refusal when no loop is found, and error messaging that names gaps. This gives the agent important expectations that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 compact and front-loads the core action first, then adds edge-case behavior in short, informative sentences. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 an output schema is present and the annotations indicate a non-destructive operation, the description covers the essential invocation semantics, edge cases, and failure behavior. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds some nuance around tolerance by describing the near-close gap failure mode, but it does not add substantially new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "create a closed polyline around a seed point" and names AutoCAD's BOUNDARY/BPOLY as the reference. The seed-point mechanism distinguishes it from the sibling boundary_from_entities, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a boundary must be created from a seed point and when the nearest enclosing loop is the desired result. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the behavioral guidance is strong enough to guide selection.

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