cv_locate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses internal mechanisms (color segmentation, centroid, template matching), zero dependencies, and measured accuracy (0-4px). However, it does not mention output format or potential failure modes, leaving a minor transparency gap.

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, front-loaded with core function, then use cases and alternatives. No wasted words, 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?

No output schema, but the description covers purpose, method, accuracy, use cases, and alternatives. It does not explicitly state the return format, though the schema's coords parameter hints at it. Given moderate complexity and good schema coverage, it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is high (83%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that color and template are alternative modes (matching the schema's 'at least one' requirement) and suggesting template use on VLM coarse-localized local regions, which is not in the schema field descriptions.

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 it performs traditional CV precise localization via color segmentation + connected component centroid or template matching. It explicitly positions itself as an alternative to locate_object/som_locate, distinguishing it from siblings with specific methods and scope.

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 states suitability for simple targets (solid colors, geometric shapes, fixed templates) and limitations of generalization, then directly instructs to use locate_object/som_locate for general targets. This provides clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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