design_trace_contours

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that the tool creates output (createLayer defaults true), whether it mutates or reads the canvas, what permissions/assets it needs, or what happens to existing geometry. For a trace tool that produces layers, this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficiently structured, though arguably too terse for the tool's role in a large trace family.

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 crowded trace-tool family, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does not do enough: it omits when-to-use/alternatives and does not explain the side effects of producing trace layers. An agent still has material gaps before calling it correctly.

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 100%, with all four parameters (epsilon, sourceId, minLength, createLayer) fully documented including defaults. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (extract) and resource (simplified contour paths from edges) with the RDP algorithm named. However, it does not differentiate from the many sibling trace tools (design_trace_edges, design_trace_lines, design_trace_regions, design_trace_shapes), so an agent cannot tell when this contour tracer is the right one versus its neighbors.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. With ~10 trace_* siblings, an agent is left to infer entirely which tracing tool to pick; the only implicit signal is 'contours' in the name.

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