Check if two polygons overlap, including containment, partial intersection, or boundary touching, and return a true/false result to guide geometry handling.
sys_Math.intersects(polygon1: TSYS_MathPolygonInput, polygon2: TSYS_MathPolygonInput) -> boolean 判断两个多边形是否相交 remarks: 判断两个多边形的区域是否有任何重叠（包括包含、部分相交、边界接触） returns: 是否相交
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does so well by spelling out the exact semantics: any overlap including containment, partial intersection, and touching counts as true. It also states the return type. It stops short of explicitly saying the call has no side effects, but the predicate nature makes that clear.
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: signature, purpose, remarks, and return. Every sentence earns its place, and the most identifying information is front-loaded.
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?
The definition is complete enough for the predicate's core semantics and return value, which is appropriate for a simple math query. Its main gap is that TSYS_MathPolygonInput is never described, so an agent still must infer how to construct the polygon arguments, and there is no guidance on edge cases like empty or invalid polygons.
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 exposes a generic args array with empty items, so the signature line in the description is essential: it gives the parameter names, order, and types (polygon1, polygon2: TSYS_MathPolygonInput). The description does not detail the TSYS_MathPolygonInput structure, but it adds meaning well beyond the 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 opens with the full method signature and a plain-language statement '判断两个多边形是否相交' (determine whether two polygons intersect). It names the specific operation (intersects), the resource type (polygons), and the boolean result, which clearly separates it from sibling math tools like bbox_intersects and contains.
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?
Usage context is implied by the description and the remarks, which define what counts as an intersection (overlap, containment, partial intersection, boundary contact). However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as contains, intersection, or bbox_intersects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.