geometry-convex-hull

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does (calculates convex hull) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like computational complexity, what happens with invalid input, whether it modifies the original geometry, or what the output format is. For a computational geometry tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. However, it's in Turkish rather than English, which could be problematic for English-trained agents, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite the concise form.

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 computational geometry tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a convex hull is, what the output looks like, edge cases, or performance characteristics. Given the complexity of geometric operations and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.

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 100% with the single parameter 'geometry_wkt' well-described as 'WKT formatında geometri' (geometry in WKT format). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with complete 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 'Geometrinin konveks zarfını hesapla' (Calculate the convex hull of geometry) states a clear verb ('hesapla' - calculate) and resource ('geometrinin konveks zarfı' - convex hull of geometry), but it's in Turkish which may reduce clarity for English-speaking agents. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'geometry-centroid' or 'geometry-union' beyond the specific operation name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other geometry operations in the sibling list like 'geometry-union' or 'geometry-intersection'.

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