eval_featurescript

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to mention any other important behaviors such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and read-only nature. It is concise, but could be slightly improved by mentioning the return value or output type.

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?

The description lacks critical information about what the expression returns or how it is used for querying. Without an output schema, the agent needs to know the format of the result (e.g., geometry data, boolean success). Additionally, no error handling or prerequisite info is provided.

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%, and the parameter names and descriptions are self-explanatory. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (evaluate), the resource (FeatureScript expression in a Part Studio), and its nature (read-only, for querying geometry). It distinguishes from sibling tools that create or modify features.

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 for querying geometry without modification, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like get_body_details or get_features, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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