geom_triangle_area

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 states the tool calculates area but does not describe output format, error handling, or computational constraints (e.g., precision, valid vertex ranges). This is inadequate for a tool with three parameters and no output schema, as it leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.

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 domain/category tags add minimal but relevant context without verbosity. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage notes, though it avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 (three parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter formats, return values, or error conditions, which are essential for correct tool invocation. The domain/category tags provide some context but are insufficient for a tool with undocumented inputs and outputs.

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 parameters p1, p2, p3 undocumented. The description mentions 'three vertices' but does not explain what these parameters represent (e.g., coordinates in a specific format like 'x,y'), their units, or constraints. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 the area of a triangle given three vertices.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('area of a triangle'), and input type ('three vertices'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'geom_polygon_area' or 'geom_circle_area' beyond the domain/category tags, which is a minor gap.

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 'Domain: geometry, Category: general' but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify if this is for 2D triangles only or how vertices should be formatted, leaving usage ambiguous.

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