path_geometry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: semantics are read from Inkscape's own source so results match the GUI. However, it does not disclose side effects such as output_path overwrite behavior, whether the source object is modified, or what the tool returns.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the key differentiator ('Semantics read from Inkscape's own source so results match the GUI') are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no required parameters, no annotations), the description is lean. It does not explain which parameters apply to which variant or what the output artifact is. The complete schema descriptions compensate partially, but an agent still lacks enough operational context for reliable 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 100%, so the schema individually documents all 15 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level value beyond listing valid kind variants in the summary, which is useful but does not explain parameter combinations or required fields per variant.

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 names a specific operation type ('path geometry') and lists concrete variants: offset/inset, fillet, chamfer, powerstroke, taper, mirror, and radial-repeat. It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like path_boolean or path_convert.

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 phrase 'Inkscape's one real headless gap' provides context that this tool fills a specific void in headless Inkscape, and the listed variants make its intended use clear. It does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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