Offset Entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. 'Create a parallel copy' usefully implies the original entity is preserved, and the line/circle/polyline scope is stated. However, it does not disclose how the offset side is determined when side_x/side_y are omitted, what happens for unsupported entity types, or whether the new entity is selected afterward.

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?

A single 15-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then specifies the operand types and the distance qualifier. Every word carries meaning; there is no filler, redundancy, or buried critical information.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the core operation is adequately stated. The main gap is the ambiguous interaction between the sign of distance and the optional side_x/side_y point: the description does not clarify which takes precedence or what happens when a side point is omitted. For a moderate-complexity tool, this is a meaningful but not crippling omission.

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 schema fully documents handle, distance, side_x, and side_y. The description contributes nothing about parameters beyond the schema's 'positive = outward/right' distance semantics. Per the rubric, the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a parallel copy of a line, circle, or polyline'), and the phrase 'parallel copy... at the given distance' captures the essence of offset in a way that inherently distinguishes it from sibling operations like entity_copy, entity_move, or entity_mirror. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as entity_copy, entity_mirror, or entity_move. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios mentioned. The agent must infer appropriate usage entirely from the tool name and the sibling list.

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