booleans_booleanOverlap

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 discloses: the tool performs a spatial computation (not destructive), requires valid JSON strings as input, uses WGS84 coordinate system, has specific overlap semantics, excludes boundary contact, depends on Turf.js/Node.js, and can raise exceptions for execution failures or bad input. This covers most behavioral aspects needed for safe invocation.

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 core purpose. Most sentences earn their place by providing essential information. However, some details in the Notes section could be more concise, and the Python example might be slightly verbose for a tool description.

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 (spatial computation with specific semantics), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return format, error conditions, examples, and implementation dependencies. The output schema handles return values, so the description appropriately focuses on behavioral context and input requirements.

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%, but the description fully compensates with detailed parameter documentation. It explains both parameters are GeoJSON objects as JSON strings, provides format requirements ('任何有效的 GeoJSON 对象'), gives concrete examples with proper syntax, and specifies coordinate order as [longitude, latitude]. 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: '检查两个几何图形是否重叠' (check if two geometries overlap). It specifies the exact spatial relationship ('有共同区域但不完全包含' - have common area but not fully contained) and distinguishes it from siblings like booleans_booleanContains and booleans_booleanWithin by explicitly defining overlap as distinct from containment.

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 about when to use this tool: for checking spatial overlap where geometries share area but don't fully contain each other. It explicitly states boundary contact is not considered overlap, helping differentiate from other boolean operations. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide 'when-not-to-use' guidance beyond the overlap definition.

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