trace_outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses output shape, coordinate frame, simplification meaning, holes behavior, ordering, and a precondition. It omits what the threshold parameter does and does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or mutates scene state, leaving some behavioral traits unstated.

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?

Three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by output/parameter details and a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant 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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, output format, and a key precondition. However, it leaves critical parameter semantics (threshold, height_m, reference) unexplained and does not clarify read-vs-mutate safety, so it is only partially adequate for 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 explain all 6 parameters. It explains simplify, holes, and min_hole, but omits reference, height_m, and threshold entirely, including the required height_m parameter, leaving half the parameters semantically undocumented.

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), resource (outer outline of a reference silhouette), and output format (closed polygon of [x, z] points in metres), including coordinate origin. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming extrude_profile and visual_hull as downstream consumers.

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 the agent: feed points to extrude_profile or build a hull with visual_hull. It also states when holes=true should be used and that the resulting holes should be given to extrude_profile, plus the prerequisite that the reference must keep its openings (prepare_reference fill_holes).

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