geometry_calc

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

With no annotations, the description covers the core behavior (calculations) and parameter format but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or output specifics. It is adequate but lacks depth beyond the basic functionality.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and efficiently structured with a clear overview, usage context, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to use it, and parameter details. It could be more exhaustive (e.g., listing all shapes and exact dimension requirements) but is sufficient for its purpose.

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 0% description coverage, so the description adds substantial value by naming the parameters, listing allowed shape values, and providing examples of dims JSON format. This compensates well for the schema's lack of description.

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 calculates 'area, perimeter, or volume for common geometric shapes' and provides specific examples like rectangles, circles, triangles, etc., distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other types of calculations.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for quick geometry math' and lists supported shapes, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving a slight gap.

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