calculate_regular_polygon

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it returns 'full geometric properties' and implies no side effects. For a pure computation tool, this is adequate, though it could mention precision or output format.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage hints, and pointer to related tools.

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 (context: 'Has output schema: true'), the description adequately covers what the tool does and its key inputs. It is complete for a calculator tool.

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% coverage and already describes 'sides' and 'length' with types and constraints. The description simply restates 'number of sides, side length', adding no extra 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 clearly states the tool computes area, perimeter, and apothem of a regular n-gon, using the verbs 'compute' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from the many other 'calculate_*' tools by naming the specific geometric properties and usage context ('geometry or tiling').

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 suggests using it for geometry or tiling, which provides context. It also references 'list_bundles for related math calculators', giving a mild pointer to alternatives. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or exclusions, which would make it stronger.

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