geom_segment_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. It mentions the domain and category but fails to describe key behavioral traits: what happens if segments don't intersect (e.g., returns null, error, or specific value), whether the tool handles degenerate cases (e.g., overlapping or parallel segments), or the format of the output (e.g., coordinates, boolean). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in a single sentence. The additional context ('Domain: geometry, Category: general') is brief and relevant, though it could be more informative. There is no wasted verbiage, 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 (2 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter formats, behavioral outcomes (e.g., intersection logic), and return values. For a geometry tool with undefined input structures, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 ('seg1' and 'seg2') of type 'object' but no details on their structure (e.g., expected properties like endpoints). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'seg1' and 'seg2' represent or how they should be formatted. This is inadequate given the low schema coverage and nested object complexity.

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: 'Find intersection point of two line segments in 2D space.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('intersection point'), and domain ('2D space'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'geom_line_intersection' or 'geom_circle_intersection', which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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') and category ('general'), but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'geom_line_intersection' for lines instead of segments, or 'geom_circle_intersection' for circles). There is no explicit 'when' or 'when not' context, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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