femm_draw_polyline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond shape. It does not say whether the geometry is committed immediately, whether it replaces or appends to existing document content, what session scoping does, or whether the operation is reversible. For a document-mutating geometry call with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the shape definition, with zero filler. '(not closed)' is mildly redundant with 'open chain of segments', a tiny bit of duplication that keeps it just short of perfect.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must stand alone, yet it omits the session parameter entirely, says nothing about return values, and gives no constraints such as minimum points or units. For a geometry-creating tool in a large CAD-style toolset, this leaves the agent under-informed about correct invocation.

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 does add meaning for 'points' by showing the [[x, y], ...] nesting, clarifying that items are coordinate pairs in a specific order that the untyped nested arrays do not convey. But the 'session' parameter is documented nowhere, and no coordinate units, ranges, or minimum-point-count constraints are given.

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?

States a specific verb (draw) and resource (polyline, defined inline as an 'open chain of segments'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling femm_draw_polygon by noting it is the non-closed case. An agent can tell it apart from femm_polygon and femm_add_segments without opening a schema.

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 equivalence note 'Same as femm_draw_polygon(closed=False)' implicitly tells the agent these two are interchangeable, which is useful routing information. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer a polyline over separate segments (femm_add_segments) or when drawing vs. adding geometry, so usage stays implied.

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