common_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether input objects are modified, whether a new object is created, what happens with an empty intersection, or what the output schema contains. The terse description leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The operation is front-loaded, and the parenthetical 'common region' adds useful clarification without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context: no usage guidance, no parameter semantics, and no behavioral transparency. Among many sibling tools, this description is too sparse to reliably guide selection and correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not clarify the roles of base_object, tool_objects, or result_name. While 'Intersect GEOM objects' gives a general sense, it does not explain how the parameters relate to the operation or what result_name controls, leaving parameter semantics to inference.

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 states a specific verb ('Intersect') and resource ('GEOM objects'), and clarifies the result as a 'common region'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fuse_objects and cut_objects, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the more general boolean_operation.

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: use this tool when you need the intersection/common region of GEOM objects. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over boolean_operation, fuse_objects, or cut_objects, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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