Convex Hull

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it works offline, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions, and the description is consistent with the non-destructive, read-only nature.

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 three sentences, no redundancy. It front-loads the primary definition, then adds use cases and an offline note. Every sentence adds value.

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 has only one parameter, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema (mentioned in context), the description provides sufficient context. It covers what, why, and when to use it.

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 100%, with the points parameter well-described in the schema (type, minItems, nested structure). The description does not add further parameter details, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Compute the convex hull of a set of points — the smallest convex polygon that contains all the points.' It provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like area_tool or bbox_tool by defining its scope.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'Useful for bounding area analysis, estimating coverage area, or wrapping a set of locations.' It also notes 'Works offline without API calls,' which helps with context. However, it does not directly contrast with specific sibling tools.

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