feature_conversion_polygon_to_line

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the tool extracts polygon boundaries, requires valid JSON input, uses WGS84 coordinate system, depends on Turf.js/Node.js, and can raise exceptions for execution failures, timeouts, or bad input. It doesn't mention performance characteristics or rate limits, but covers the essential behavior well.

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. Some redundancy exists (e.g., coordinate order mentioned multiple times), but every section adds value. The example is particularly helpful for understanding usage.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no annotations but with output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, return values, error conditions, dependencies, and provides a working example. The Notes section adds important implementation details about JSON format and coordinate systems.

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 schema only says 'polygon' is a string), the description fully compensates. It provides detailed semantics: the parameter must be a JSON string in GeoJSON Polygon/MultiPolygon format, with WGS84 coordinates in [longitude, latitude] order, and includes a concrete example. 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 tool's purpose: '将多边形转换为线几何图形' (convert polygon to line geometry). It specifies the exact transformation (polygon/multi-polygon to line/multi-line) and distinguishes from siblings like 'feature_conversion_line_to_polygon' (which does the reverse) and 'feature_conversion_polygonize' (which creates polygons).

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: when you need to extract polygon boundaries as lines. It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the sibling tool 'feature_conversion_line_to_polygon' is clearly the inverse operation, providing implicit guidance.

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