geom_distance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does without mentioning any behavioral aspects such as error handling (e.g., invalid input formats), performance characteristics, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and domain. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 (a mathematical calculation with two parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover parameter semantics, behavioral traits, or output details, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, with two required string parameters ('p1' and 'p2'). The description does not explain what these parameters represent (e.g., coordinate formats like '(x,y)' or 'x,y'), their expected syntax, or any constraints. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, making parameter usage ambiguous.

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's purpose: 'Calculate Euclidean distance between two 2D points.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('Euclidean distance'), and domain/context ('geometry, general'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'geom_distance_3d' or 'geom_manhattan_distance', which would require 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 minimal usage guidance by mentioning the domain ('geometry, Category: general'), but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'geom_distance_3d' for 3D points, 'geom_manhattan_distance' for Manhattan distance). There are no explicit instructions on prerequisites, limitations, or comparisons to siblings.

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