booleans_booleanContains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a read-only boolean check (implied by '检查' - check), specifies that boundary contact is not considered containment ('边界接触不被视为包含'), notes coordinate order requirements ('坐标顺序为 [经度, 纬度]'), and mentions dependencies ('依赖于 Turf.js 库和 Node.js 环境'). It also covers error conditions ('Raises: Exception...'). The only gap is lack of explicit rate limit or performance info, but this is reasonable for a geometric operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises, Example, Notes) and front-loaded purpose. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 2 parameters and detailed requirements. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'JSON 字符串格式'), but overall it's efficient with zero fluff—every sentence provides necessary technical details.

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 (spatial boolean operation), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema (implied by Returns section), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return format, errors, examples, and critical notes (coordinate order, containment definition, dependencies). The output schema is clearly described in the Returns section, so no additional return value explanation is needed. This provides all necessary context for correct tool 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 fully compensate. It does so excellently: for both parameters (geojson1, geojson2), it provides type (str/JSON string), format (valid GeoJSON object), and concrete examples with detailed syntax. It also explains the spatial relationship context ('第一个几何图形是否完全包含第二个几何图形') and coordinate system (WGS84). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool's purpose: '检查第一个几何图形是否包含第二个几何图形' (Check if the first geometry contains the second geometry). It specifies the exact operation (contains check) and resources (GeoJSON geometries), and distinguishes from siblings like 'booleans_booleanWithin' (which checks the inverse relationship) and 'booleans_booleanPointInPolygon' (which is a specific case).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for checking if one GeoJSON geometry fully contains another. It implies usage by specifying the spatial relationship ('完全包含' - fully contains) and notes that boundary contact is not considered containment. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'booleans_booleanWithin' for the inverse check), though the sibling list allows for inference.

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