Trace Boundary

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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations (only destructiveHint: false). It discloses that the tool creates an entity (polyline), explains the nearest-enclosing-loop behavior, edge-splitting behavior, and error conditions when no loop is found. This gives the agent crucial expectations for how the tool behaves in edge cases.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence introduction followed by three action-packed sentences describing behavioral nuances. No filler or redundant text; every sentence adds value for selection and usage.

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 highly informative given the tool's complexity, covering creation, edge cases, and errors. It does not explain return values, but the presence of an output schema means that is not required. It could have mentioned prerequisites (e.g., existing geometry) but that is reasonably inferred. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions for x, y, layer, and tolerance. The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning 'seed point' and edge-gap errors but does not elaborate on parameter formats or units. Since the schema already carries the parameter meanings, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a closed polyline around a seed point, explicitly referencing AutoCAD's BOUNDARY/BPOLY command. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like boundary_from_entities (which likely creates boundaries from existing entities) by focusing on the seed-point method.

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 describing the seed-point workflow and the resulting boundary, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like boundary_from_entities or entity_create_polyline. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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