calcular_poligonal

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the computational model (tolerance T·√n, bowditch vs transit compensation), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond structure. But it omits units (is angulo in DMS string or decimal degrees?), error behaviour when closure exceeds tolerancia_angular_seg or precisao_minima, and whether the call fails or returns a warning.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and its outputs, then switches to a compact parameter glossary; nearly every clause carries information. The telegraphic, symbol-dense style ("1:N", "{'e','n'}") is terse but readable for a technical agent.

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 9-parameter computational tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the inputs reasonably but never describes the return shape (closure values, residuals, coordinate list) or failure semantics, which an agent needs to interpret results. The combination of no output schema and no return-value description is the main incompleteness.

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 every nested object is opaque (additionalProperties: true), so the description does heavy lifting by defining estacoes keys {nome, angulo, distancia}, the meaning of the angle (clockwise from backsight to foresight), distance to the next station, and the apoio keys {re, partida, chegada, vante}. It leaves fator_escala, precisao_minima, and tipo's other possible values unexplained, so it is not fully compensating.

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?

It gives a specific verb and resource — computes a topographic traverse — and enumerates the concrete outputs (angular closure with T·√n tolerance, linear closure, 1:N precision, compensation, coordinates), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as area_poligono or the UTM/datum converters, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 effectively separates two usage modes — closed traverse (requires azimute_inicial and inicio) and connected/framed traverse (requires apoio) — which is real conditional guidance for choosing inputs. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over the sibling geodetic tools, nor what inputs make the call invalid.

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