rupa_cad_tepi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral context that the tool returns edge indices with direction and length, and that these indices are stable enough to be referenced by fillet. However, it doesn't disclose the return format or whether the list is ordered, which would be useful for an agent relying on indices.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage warning is placed immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only listing tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose, the prerequisite relationship, and why the tool matters. The only gap is the lack of detail about the output format (how edges are identified, ordering), but since there is no output schema, a bit more detail there would help. Still, the description is strong for its complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (nama and ruang) with patterns and descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Daftar tepi sebuah bentuk berikut ARAH dan PANJANGNYA' (list edges of a shape with direction and length). It clearly identifies the tool as a listing/inspection tool for CAD edges. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like rupa_cad_daftar or rupa_cad_ukur, but the edge-specific focus is clear enough.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Panggil ini SEBELUM fillet selektif' (call this BEFORE selective fillet) and explains why: without this list, 'fillet tepi tegak saja' means guessing indices, and edge indices are not guessable. This is strong usage guidance that names the prerequisite relationship with a sibling tool (rupa_cad_fillet).

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