measure_polygon

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses coordinate system details (origin top-left, y down, image px at render scale 2.0), requirements, and the effect of the role parameter, leaving no hidden behavioral surprises.

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 single dense paragraph that packs essential information without redundancy. Each sentence adds value, though the coordinate system detail could be more succinctly integrated. Still, it is well-structured for an agent.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the tool's purpose, coordinate system, prerequisites, and parameter roles. It lacks details on error handling (e.g., unclosed polygon) but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'verts' are image pixel coordinates at a specific scale, 'condition' commits the measurement, and 'role' deducts. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

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 measures a closed polygon's area and perimeter in square feet and linear feet at the sheet's scale, using image pixel coordinates. It distinguishes from sibling tools like measure_line by specifying polygon measurement.

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 mentions prerequisites (scale must be set) and special usage (pass condition to commit, role 'deduct' subtracts), providing clear guidance on when and how to use the tool. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios, but context is adequate.

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