array_polar

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full transparency. It discloses the operation as a copy (non-destructive), defines the center point (cx,cy), count, angle in degrees, and the special GUI selection for handles. However, it does not clarify whether count includes the original set or only new copies, nor does it mention edge-case behavior or potential side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded, using two sentences to convey purpose and a key usage detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool, with no redundant or generic content.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool but leaves ambiguity around count semantics (total instances vs additional copies) and does not explain how to provide entity handles other than the 'selection' keyword. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return-value details, but the input behavior is not fully specified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully explains cx, cy as the center, count as the number of copies, angle in degrees, and handles=['selection'] as a special GUI-selection mechanism. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail the full range of handle values.

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 function: 'copy entities count times around (cx,cy) over angle degrees'. The name 'array_polar' and the description explicitly indicate a polar distribution of copies, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'array_rect' which handles rectangular arrays.

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 context that handles=['selection'] uses the GUI selection, implying when a selection is required. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like array_rect or state a preferred use case, leaving the usage guidance mostly implicit.

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