geometry_add_circle

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action of adding a circle. There is no mention of side effects, required permissions, or constraints (e.g., whether the circle can be modified later).

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 concise docstring with a clear purpose line, parameter list, and return statement. It is well-structured and includes no unnecessary text, efficiently conveying the core 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?

For a simple additive tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic inputs and output ('Created circle info'), but it lacks details on the output format or any constraints. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete with examples or additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter: position as center [x,y] in meters, radius default 0.5, and optional geometry/model names. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already shows defaults and types. The description does not elaborate on units or expected format beyond the docstring.

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 the tool adds a circle to a 2D geometry or work plane. The verb 'Add' and resource 'circle' are specific, and the tool is distinguished from siblings like geometry_add_block or geometry_add_rectangle by its shape-specific name and description.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other geometry addition tools (e.g., add_block, add_rectangle). No context such as prerequisites or if the geometry must exist beforehand is provided.

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