scale_geometry

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Scale a geometry' without explaining what scaling entails (e.g., origin, coordinate modifications), whether it mutates input or returns a new 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?

While the description is a single sentence, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and many siblings. Conciseness is sacrificed for completeness; the description fails to inform.

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 complexity of scaling geometry and the presence of similar sibling tools, the description is grossly incomplete. It lacks details on coordinate systems, output behavior, and integration with other operations, making it difficult for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about parameters. The roles of 'xfact', 'yfact', 'origin', and the format of 'geometry' are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them.

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 'scale' and the resource 'geometry'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like translate_geometry or rotate_geometry, which also modify geometry.

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 or when not to use it. The description only states the basic purpose, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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