Turf-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the return format (JSON string with a 'value' object), notes default behavior (precision=0 for integer rounding), and mentions dependencies (Turf.js, Node.js) and error conditions (JavaScript failures, timeouts, input errors). However, it doesn't detail performance aspects like rate limits.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured: it front-loads the purpose, but includes verbose sections like 'Args', 'Returns', 'Raises', 'Example', and 'Notes' that could be streamlined. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating precision details), reducing efficiency.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete: it covers purpose, parameters, return values, errors, examples, and dependencies. The output schema handles return structure, so the description needn't explain it further.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully by providing detailed parameter semantics: it explains 'num' as the number to round with type, range, and example, and 'precision' as decimal places with type, description, default, range, and example. This adds meaning beyond the basic 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 with specific verbs ('四舍五入', '控制小数位数') and resources ('数字'), distinguishing it from siblings like coordinate_mutation_clean_coords or coordinate_mutation_truncate. It explicitly defines the mathematical rounding operation, making its function unambiguous.

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 implies usage through the 'Args' and 'Example' sections, suggesting it's for numerical precision control, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., coordinate_mutation_truncate for truncation). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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