booleans_booleanDisjoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it explains the return format (JSON with boolean value), error conditions (Raises section), dependencies (Turf.js, Node.js), and specific behavioral details like coordinate order [longitude, latitude] and that boundary contact is considered intersection. It doesn't mention performance or rate limits, but covers core behavior adequately.

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-loads the purpose. It could be slightly more concise as some information in Notes (e.g., coordinate order) might be integrated earlier, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, boolean operation), no annotations, but with output schema (implied by Returns section), the description is complete: it covers purpose, parameters, return format, errors, examples, and implementation notes. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, which it handles appropriately.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation: it defines both parameters (geojson1, geojson2), specifies their type (JSON strings), format requirements (valid GeoJSON), and provides concrete examples. This adds substantial value 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 specific verb ('检查是否不相交' - checks if disjoint) and resource ('两个几何图形' - two geometries), distinguishing it from siblings like 'booleanContains' or 'booleanOverlap' by focusing on the disjoint relationship. The first sentence directly answers what the tool does.

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 ('检查两个几何图形是否完全不相交' - checks if two geometries are completely disjoint), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling boolean tools. The Notes section adds usage constraints (e.g., boundary contact counts as intersection).

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