assert_profiles

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the failure mode it addresses (self-intersecting polygons silently returning profiles=2) and the boolean result format. It doesn't provide exhaustive return-format detail (e.g., whether there's a message field), but it's fairly transparent for a simple assert-type tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states the core check and return behavior; the second adds crucial 'when to use' context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a compact assert utility with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function, the return outcome, and the motivating use case. It could specify whether 'self-intersecting' creates an exception or a specific return value, but this level of detail is likely beyond what's needed for a validation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate for both parameters. It does explain that 'expected' refers to the expected number of closed profiles and implies how 'sketch' is used (the sketch under test). It could add explicit types/validation, but the meaning is well-conveyed given the simplicity of the parameters.

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 a specific verb+resource+intent: 'Check that the sketch has the expected number of closed profiles' and even describes the return value behavior ('Returns ok=False if not'). The second sentence distinguishes it from sibling sketch tools by explaining its unique role in catching silent self-intersecting polygon behavior.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'Use after building a sketch to catch self-intersecting polygons (which return profiles=2 silently).' It provides a clear, practical trigger scenario and partially explains the alternative (silent behavior) it guards against, which helps an agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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