eda_sys_math_calculate_area

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

With no annotations, the description states what the call returns and the difference between absolute and net area depending on input shape. This adds behavioral context beyond a bare 'calculate area' statement. It does not discuss units or side effects, but the pure math nature and return semantics cover the main behavioral traits.

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?

Three short lines with no filler: signature, purpose, and return semantics. The most important selection information appears first.

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?

For a simple calculation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers invocation target and result semantics. Minor gaps remain around units and the exact shape of TSYS_MathPolygonInput, but these are not critical for selecting and invoking the tool in typical cases.

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 schema only provides a generic args array; the description's signature adds the actual parameter name and type polygon: TSYS_MathPolygonInput and clarifies that the input can be a single polygon or polygon group. It does not document the internal structure of TSYS_MathPolygonInput, but it meaningfully supplements the otherwise generic schema.

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 names the exact API function and states '计算多边形面积' (calculate polygon area), a concrete verb+resource action. It also differentiates from sibling math operations such as eda_sys_math_calculate_perimeter by specifying area and the absolute-vs-net return 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?

It provides clear context that this tool is for polygon area computation and explicitly gives return behavior for single versus grouped polygons. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it misses the top tier, but use is readily inferable.

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