eda_sys_math_contains

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the core behavior: a boolean containment test with polygon1 as the container and polygon2 as the candidate. But it does not clarify edge cases such as boundary touching, error behavior, or explicitly confirm that the operation is side-effect-free.

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 short and front-loads the signature, which is good. However, the final 'returns: ...' line is a near-duplicate of the preceding '判断 ...' line, so not every sentence earns its place. Minor redundancy keeps it from being exemplary.

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 math predicate, the description covers the core action and return type, which is adequate for initial selection. It is incomplete on how to represent TSYS_MathPolygonInput within the args array and does not address containment edge cases, though the low complexity limits the severity of these gaps.

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 only provides a generic 'args' array and optional windowId, so the description's signature adds crucial meaning: parameter names, types, and order-dependent roles. The explanation that polygon1 must contain polygon2 gives the order semantic relevance, although the internal structure of TSYS_MathPolygonInput is not defined here.

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 opens with the exact function signature and states '判断 polygon1 是否完全包含 polygon2', using a specific verb and both polygon arguments. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as contains_point, intersects, and intersection, which address different geometric relationships.

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 intended use is implied clearly: use this when a boolean answer is needed for whether one polygon fully contains another. However, the description does not explicitly name any sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the routing decision is left mostly to inference from the name and semantics.

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