misc_unkink_polygon

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 by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes the transformation behavior (eliminates self-intersections, returns multiple polygons), technical dependencies (Turf.js, Node.js), error conditions (JavaScript execution failures, timeouts, format errors), and output format details. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics like execution time or resource usage.

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 (purpose, Args, Returns, Raises, Example, Notes) and front-loaded with the core functionality. While comprehensive, some sections could be more concise (e.g., the example is quite detailed). Every sentence adds value, but there's minor redundancy in format specifications.

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 (geometric processing with dependencies), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with output schema provided, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, errors, examples, dependencies, and technical constraints. The output schema handles return structure, so the description appropriately focuses on behavioral context.

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 (schema only says 'polygon' is a string), the description fully compensates by providing rich parameter semantics: it explains the parameter must be a JSON string in GeoJSON Polygon format with WGS84 coordinates, provides a detailed example, and specifies coordinate order. This adds substantial value beyond the minimal 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 ('消除' meaning 'eliminate') and resources ('多边形中的自相交部分' meaning 'self-intersecting parts of polygons'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'misc_kinks' (which likely detects but doesn't fix kinks) and polygon transformation tools. It explicitly describes the core functionality of detecting and removing self-intersections to return clean polygon collections.

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 context through technical specifications (GeoJSON format, WGS84 coordinate system) and notes about dependencies (Turf.js, Node.js), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'misc_kinks' or polygon cleaning tools. It provides necessary constraints but lacks comparative guidance with sibling tools.

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