geom_circle_intersection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states what the tool does ('Find intersection points') without describing how it behaves—e.g., whether it returns all intersection points, handles degenerate cases, requires specific input formats, or has error handling. This minimal information is inadequate for a tool with complex inputs, warranting a score of 1.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it efficient and easy to parse, which aligns perfectly with the criteria for a score of 5.

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 the complexity (two nested object parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain input requirements, behavioral traits, or output format, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to use the tool correctly. This inadequacy results in a score of 1.

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 has 0% description coverage, with two required parameters ('circle1' and 'circle2') as nested objects. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain what properties these circles should have (e.g., center coordinates, radius) or how to structure them. With no parameter information in the description to compensate for the schema gap, the score is 1.

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 verb ('Find intersection points') and resource ('two circles'), specifying the domain (geometry) and category (general). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'geom_line_intersection' or 'geom_segment_intersection' by focusing on circles, but does not explicitly differentiate from other circle-related tools (e.g., 'geom_circle_area'), making it a 4 rather than 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the domain and category, but does not specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or when other tools might be more appropriate. This lack of explicit usage context results in a score of 2.

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