get_coordinates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not mention what action occurs (e.g., parsing geometry, returning coordinates), the format of the output, error handling for invalid geometry, or any 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 concise (6 words) but overly brief, sacrificing clarity and completeness. It front-loads the action but omits critical details, making it insufficiently informative.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not set expectations for the return value (e.g., coordinates as array, object, or tuple). For a simple one-parameter tool, the description should at least state the output format.

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?

The parameter 'geometry' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what format the string should be (e.g., WKT, GeoJSON). Without this context, the agent cannot correctly provide the input.

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 restates the tool name with minimal elaboration: 'Get the coordinates of a geometry.' It does not specify what type of coordinates (e.g., 2D, 3D, geodetic) and fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_centroid' or 'get_bounds' that also return coordinate data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that handle geometry coordinates. The context includes numerous alternatives (e.g., get_centroid, get_bounds), but the description offers no differentiation.

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