table_geometry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the return content (type, bounding box, snap points) and points to inspect_object for board snap points. It does not state that the tool is read-only or that it has no side effects, though the zero-parameter nature makes this low risk.

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 two sentences and front-loads the key information about what is returned. The second sentence is slightly fragmented ('Snap points that belong to a board are listed by inspect_object on the board') but still conveys the necessary routing information without waste.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and where board-specific snap points are found. For a simple read-only getter, this is sufficiently complete, though an explicit 'read-only' note would strengthen it.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4.

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 specifies the exact data returned: table type, bounding box (with center and size), and global snap points. It also differentiates from the sibling inspect_object for board-specific snap points. A clear verb like 'Get' is missing, but the resource and attributes are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: call this tool to obtain table geometry. It explicitly tells the agent to use inspect_object for snap points belonging to a board, which is a useful exclusion. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance or mention of alternatives for the table geometry itself.

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