trace_outline

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world. The description goes well beyond: it specifies the coordinate system and units of the returned points, the ordering and area threshold of returned holes, and a required precondition on the reference. This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and output format, then downstream usage and the holes/min_hole details. Dense but each sentence carries information; no filler.

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 exists, and the description competently documents the return shape and hole semantics. It falls short only on the unexplained height_m and threshold parameters, which an agent must still guess at.

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 carry the burden. It explains simplify (max deviation in metres), holes (returns openings), and min_hole (fraction of outline area), but says nothing about height_m (required), threshold, or reference beyond the implied silhouette.

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 (trace) and resource (outer outline of a reference silhouette) plus the exact output form ([x, z] points in metres with a stated origin). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like measure_profile or visual_hull from the description alone.

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?

Explicitly routes output to extrude_profile or visual_hull and states the condition for holes=true. It also gives the prerequisite that the reference must keep its openings (prepare_reference fill_holes). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use, but the downstream routing is clear.

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