snap_geometry

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a snapped geometry but does not mention that the input geometries remain unchanged, nor does it disclose potential side effects like coordinate modifications or performance implications for large geometries.

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, using a clean docstring format with Args and Returns sections. It contains no redundant information and is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 lack of annotations and schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the snapping algorithm, edge cases (e.g., what happens if no vertices are within tolerance), or the context in which snapping is useful. The return format is described but the overall context for using this tool is insufficient.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It describes each parameter as 'WKT string' and 'distance tolerance', which is helpful but omits details about tolerance units, acceptable values, or the format of WKT. It adds some value beyond the schema but is not comprehensive.

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 verb 'snap' and the objects 'one geometry to another', specifying the use of shapely.ops.snap. This distinguishes it from sibling geometry tools like 'buffer' or 'intersect', but does not explicitly differentiate its unique behavior.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description lacks information on prerequisites, such as the requirement for geometries to be within the tolerance distance for snapping to occur.

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