check_geometry

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It states it reads input and writes output, and emphasizes non-mutating behavior. But it omits details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens to existing data (overwrite is mentioned only in schema).

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 concise sentences with front-loaded action and clear structuring. No fluff, but could integrate parameter hints more tightly.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, but output schema exists, the description covers the core purpose and usage context adequately but misses explaining the overwrite parameter and does not detail the output table structure.

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 description coverage is 0% per context, so description must compensate. It only indirectly mentions 'input features' and 'output table', but does not describe the overwrite parameter or path requirements beyond 'PathGuard allowed roots'.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks geometry problems using ArcPy CheckGeometry and writes to an output table. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning it as a non-mutating QA/QC step before repair or export.

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?

Explicitly says to use as a non-mutating step before related operations, providing good context. However, it does not exclude scenarios like when to use alternative check tools (e.g., topology_check) or 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.