validate-geometry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('check validity') without detailing what 'validity' entails (e.g., topological correctness, coordinate constraints), potential side effects, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details if expanded for better clarity.

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 a validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes validity, how results are returned, or error cases, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

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' clearly documented as 'WKT formatında geometri' (geometry in WKT format). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the 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 'Geometrinin geçerliliğini kontrol et' (Check the validity of geometry) states a clear verb ('check validity') and resource ('geometry'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'geometry-info' or 'simplify-geometry' that might also involve geometry validation aspects, making it somewhat vague in distinguishing its specific role.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., before other operations), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone without explicit direction.

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