eda_sys_math_xor

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavioral detail: the returned polygon group preserves outer-ring/hole attribution. It does not mention whether input polygons are mutated, coordinate system requirements, or error behavior, but the core computational semantics are clear for a pure math function.

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 compact: a signature line, a one-line operation definition, and a return-value note. Every element contributes information, and the most identifying details (name, inputs, operation) are 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 operation and return semantics are covered, and the return type is specified. However, the input format of TSYS_MathPolygonInput is not explained, and the schema offers no nested structure for the polygon arguments, so an agent may lack enough information to construct valid inputs. The windowId parameter also goes unmentioned.

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 and windowId, so the description adds significant meaning by including the full signature (polygon1/TSYS_MathPolygonInput, polygon2/TSYS_MathPolygonInput), naming the actual parameters, their order, and types. It does not elaborate on the internal structure of TSYS_MathPolygonInput, leaving some ambiguity.

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 leads with the exact function signature and states '计算两个多边形的对称差集（异或）' (computes the symmetric difference/XOR of two polygons), naming a specific operation and resource. This clearly differentiates it from sibling math tools like union, intersection, and subtract without ambiguity.

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 a clear context: use this tool when the symmetric difference (XOR) of two polygons is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as eda_sys_math_intersection, eda_sys_math_union, or eda_sys_math_subtract, nor state when not to use it.

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