find_edge_by_coordinate

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the basic outcome and does not disclose how tolerance affects matching, what coordinate system is used, whether partial or no matches error out, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for an unannotated 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?

The description is a single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and result. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for what it does state.

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?

Although an output schema exists, this tool has five parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no annotations. The description does not explain coordinate semantics, tolerance behavior, timeout usage, or how the coordinate should be formatted beyond the schema shape. An agent would have to guess important calling details.

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, but it only mentions 'coordinate' implicitly and adds nothing about timeout, tolerance, model_name, or instance_name. It does not even explain that tolerance controls the closeness criterion, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning from names alone.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('edge index of an instance'), and the selection criterion ('closest to the given coordinate'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling find_face_by_coordinate, even without explicit mention.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need the edge index nearest to a coordinate. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like find_face_by_coordinate, but the edge/face contrast is evident and the intended use is unambiguous.

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