Calculates a polygon's area in m² and hectares plus its perimeter from UTM or geographic coordinates for planar or geodesic land-surveying calculations.
Área (m² e ha) e perímetro de um polígono. tipo='utm' com pontos {'e','n'} (área no plano UTM) ou tipo='geo' com pontos {'lat','lon'} (área geodésica no elipsoide GRS80).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tipo | No | utm | |
| pontos | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose outputs (area m²/ha, perimeter) and the two computation methods (planar UTM vs geodesic GRS80 ellipsoid). It omits input-validity behavior: minimum vertex count, whether points must be ordered/closed, and error handling for invalid polygons.
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?
Two dense sentences with no filler; outputs are front-loaded, then the mode/point-format distinction. Only minor inefficiency is the line break mid-definition.
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 stateless computation tool with no output schema and 0% coverage, the description covers outputs and both input modes well. The main remaining gap is input constraints (min points, ordering) rather than results, which an agent would still need.
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 coverage is 0% and the pontos array items are opaque generic objects, so the description does all the work. It specifies the exact keys for each mode ({'e','n'} for utm, {'lat','lon'} for geo) and the meaning of the tipo values, fully compensating for the empty 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?
States a specific resource and outputs: area in m² and ha plus perimeter of a polygon. Clear enough to distinguish from coordinate-conversion siblings (geo_para_utm, utm_para_geo) implicitly, though no sibling is named explicitly and the closest analog (calcular_poligonal) is not addressed.
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 explains when to use each mode (tipo='utm' for planar UTM, tipo='geo' for geodesic GRS80), which is genuine mode-selection guidance. But it says nothing about when to choose this tool versus the transform/convert siblings in the family; usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.