Polar Array

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating a mutation/write operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: count is unbounded (potential performance implication) and the fields=['handle'] optimization when geometry is already known. However, it does not clarify whether the original entity is preserved or altered, nor does it explain the behavior around zero or negative fill angles. The added value is moderate but not rich.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second provides a high-value param tip with a cross-reference. Every word 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 description covers the tool's purpose, a key parameter behavior, and a link to the rectangular array sibling. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The main gap is that it assumes the agent is familiar with the rectangular array's 'result-shaping' concept, which could confuse a new agent, but the reference is explicit enough to allow lookup.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that count is unbounded (a caveat not present in the schema description) and by giving a specific usage tip for the fields parameter ('fields=["handle"] when the geometry is already known'). This adds practical meaning to two parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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 'Create a polar (circular) array of copies around a center point' with a specific verb (create) and resource (array), and the 'circular' qualifier distinguishes it from the rectangular array sibling. The title 'Polar Array' reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 references the rectangular array ('same result-shaping applies as for the rectangular array'), which anchors the usage to a known sibling tool and implies that the polar array is the circular counterpart. It does not explicitly state when to choose polar over rectangular, but the purpose is clear from the name and description, and the cross-reference provides meaningful context.

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