geometry-intersection

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 the operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns a geometry or boolean, error conditions for invalid inputs, performance characteristics, or what coordinate system is assumed. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 in Turkish that directly states the tool's function. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration, making it perfectly concise for its purpose.

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 geometry operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the intersection returns (geometry, boolean, error), coordinate system handling, or edge cases. Given the complexity of spatial 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 both parameters clearly documented as WKT geometries. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., doesn't explain WKT format requirements or valid geometry types). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 as 'finding the intersection of two geometries' (specific verb+resource). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'geometry-union' or 'spatial-join', but the core function is unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'geometry-union' or 'spatial-join'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist.

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