minimum_rotated_rectangle

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any nuances like coordinate system handling, orientation of the rectangle, or precision. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 sentence with no padding, achieving conciseness. However, it sacrifices necessary details about parameter format and behavioral context, making it only minimally adequate.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value or behavior, and the output schema exists but is not referenced. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

There is one parameter 'geometry' of type string, but the description does not specify the expected format (e.g., WKT, GeoJSON). Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add any meaningful semantics beyond the parameter name.

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 'Get minimum rotated rectangle of a geometry' clearly states the verb (Get) and the resource (minimum rotated rectangle of a geometry), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'envelope' or 'convex_hull', which could lead to confusion.

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 alternatives such as 'convex_hull' or 'envelope'. The description lacks any contextual cues about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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