clip_to_ndc

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

The description accurately outlines the core mathematical behavior. However, it does not disclose edge cases (e.g., division by zero if w=0, handling of w values near zero, or behavior with negative w). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and these gaps could lead to unexpected results or errors.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and operation. No extraneous words, every part contributes to the description. The agent can quickly understand the transform being applied.

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?

Despite the tool's relative simplicity, there is no output schema, yet the description does not hint at the return format (e.g., a point object with x, y, z? an array?). Additionally, there is no mention of error handling for invalid input (like w=0). Given the graphics domain where precise coordinate transformations are critical, this lack of completeness could cause misuse.

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 zero description coverage (0%), so the description must compensate. It identifies the three derived values (x/w, y/w, z/w) but does not explain the role of each component (e.g., that x,y,z are homogeneous coordinates and w is the perspective divisor). It also omits constraints (e.g., w should not be zero) or the expected coordinate system.

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 specific operation: performing a 4D perspective divide (x/w, y/w, z/w) to convert clip-space coordinates to NDC. It uses a precise verb ('performs') and identifies the resource ('clip-space perspective divide') and the target ('normalized device coordinates'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'view_to_clip' and 'ndc_to_screen' which handle adjacent pipeline stages.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, such as the prerequisite that the input must already be in clip space (e.g., after 'view_to_clip'), or that the output is typically fed into 'ndc_to_screen'. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions where this tool is not appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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