geometry-centroid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool finds a centroid but does not describe the return format (e.g., coordinates, WKT), error handling (e.g., for invalid geometries), or performance considerations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, clear sentence in Turkish: 'Geometrinin merkez noktasını bul' (Find the center point of geometry). It is front-loaded with the core purpose, with no unnecessary words or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 the complexity of geometric operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a point geometry, coordinates), how it handles edge cases (e.g., multi-geometries), or any limitations. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'geometry_wkt' documented as 'WKT formatında geometri' (geometry in WKT format). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Geometrinin merkez noktasını bul' (Find the center point of geometry). It specifies both the verb ('find') and the resource ('center point of geometry'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'geometry-info' or 'geometry-convex-hull', which might also provide geometric properties.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'geometry-info' (which might include centroid information) or 'create-point' (for creating points manually), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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