Polar Array

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it notes that count is unbounded and recommends fields=["handle"] when geometry is already known. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, error conditions, or what happens to the original entity beyond calling them "copies."

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-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides a practical tip, though it assumes familiarity with the rectangular array's "result-shaping" behavior, which slightly reduces self-contained clarity.

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 a complete input schema and an output schema available, the description does not need to repeat return details. It covers the main operation and a key edge case, but it leaves some behavioral details, such as rotation direction and handling of the original entity, to inference.

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 already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that count is unbounded and by giving concrete guidance on the fields parameter, which is not fully captured in the schema.

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 verb and resource: "Create a polar (circular) array of copies around a center point." It clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from the rectangular array sibling by explicitly naming the polar/circular geometry.

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 makes the basic use case clear and references the rectangular array's result-shaping behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like entity_array_rectangular or entity_copy. The usage context is implied rather than fully articulated.

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