offset_internal_line

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It goes beyond the basic action by explaining the failure mode when CLO creates nothing and offering corrective options. It does not describe the success return value or reversibility, but the key behavioral edge case is covered.

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 compact and well-organized: purpose first, then a usage caveat with fallback advice, then a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value, and no text is redundant.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the main failure mode, troubleshooting options, and all parameters. It is slightly thin on success return values and index conventions, but an agent can confidently attempt the call and recover from errors.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: every parameter is given an actionable meaning, including units for distance and behavior for reverse/extend. It could be stronger by stating constraints like positive distance or count, but the provided docs are sufficient for invocation.

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 first sentence states a precise verb and resource: 'Create internal lines parallel to an outline line', with concrete examples (hem fold or pleat lines). This makes the tool's function clear and differentiates it from sibling tools like add_internal_shape or convert_shape.

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 a clear usage constraint: the offset must fit inside the piece, and it explicitly tells the agent what to try if the operation fails (reverse=True, smaller distance, longer line). It does not compare against alternative tools, but the parameter-level guidance is actionable and context-rich.

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