offset

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: creates a new copy (not in-place modification), offsets by distance in mm, and defines directional semantics for each geometry type. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw schema. However, it omits side effects (e.g., whether the original is left unchanged) and does not state required inputs like which object the 'name' refers to, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core action and then pack geometry-specific rules efficiently. No filler or redundancy; 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?

The tool has only two parameters and no annotations, so completeness hinges on the description. It covers offset direction well but leaves the `name` parameter unexplained, which is essential for invocation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the ambiguity about the object being offset makes the description incomplete for correct agent usage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains `distance`, including sign conventions per geometry type, which adds real value. However, `name`—the only other parameter—is not described at all; it is unclear whether it names the source object or the new copy. With two parameters and only one explained, the description provides partial compensation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a parallel copy at `distance` mm.' It clearly identifies the operation (offsetting geometry) and distinguishes it from siblings like create_line or copy_object by detailing behavior for different geometry types. The sign conventions for closed/open polylines and circles/arcs further clarify the tool's specific purpose.

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 implies usage by defining offset direction for various geometry types, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., copy_object + move, or other creation tools). There is no mention of prerequisites like 'selected object' or when not to use it. The shape-specific semantics provide partial guidance but no explicit routing or exclusions.

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