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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the tool animates a mechanism controlled by a slider but does not describe side effects, required setup (e.g., existing construction with a slider), error handling, or what happens when the label is invalid.

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 extremely concise with a one-line purpose statement followed by clear parameter descriptions. No fluff or redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 low schema coverage and no annotations, the description adequately explains the parameters but misses broader context such as prerequisites (e.g., an existing mechanism with a slider) and how the animation interacts with other GeoGebra operations. The presence of an output schema partially compensates.

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%, but the description adds meaning for all three parameters: label as slider tag (e.g., 'α'), animate as whether to start animation, and speed as speed in range 0.1-10. This goes beyond the schema which only provides titles and types.

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's purpose: '设置动画——让滑块控制的机构动起来' (Set animation - make the mechanism controlled by the slider move). The verb '设置动画' and the specific resource '滑块控制的机构' distinguish it from sibling tools like geogebra_draw_mechanism.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for effective use, or situations where other tools (e.g., geogebra_exec, geogebra_run_commands) would be more appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether batch execution clears the existing construction or appends to it, nor does it discuss side effects, state changes, or prerequisites.

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 extremely concise, using two short paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides parameter details. Every sentence is necessary and 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?

Given the tool's complexity (1 parameter) and presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the input well. However, it omits important behavioral context (e.g., whether it clears state) and does not describe the output format, relying on the output schema. This is adequate but not fully complete for a mutation 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 schema provides no description for the commands_json parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining it expects a JSON array of commands and provides a concrete example, which adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 executes multiple commands in batch for building a complete mechanism. It distinguishes from siblings like geogebra_exec (likely single command) by emphasizing batch execution, but could be more explicit about the contrast.

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 mentions suitability for building a complete mechanism, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., geogebra_exec or geogebra_run_commands). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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

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

In the absence of annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It details important auto-behaviors such as automatic hiding of auxiliary circles, visibility and playback of animation slider, and naming conventions. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like file overwriting, error conditions, or whether the tool requires authentication, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured with bullet points for auto-behaviors and a formatted example. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose and key advantage. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 complexity with 3 parameters and a nested object, the description covers the core usage, format, and automatic behaviors. An output schema exists, so the absence of return value explanation is acceptable. However, it misses mention of error handling, dependencies (e.g., GeoGebra installation), and validation specifics, which would make it fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear example of the design dict format, explaining keys like perspective, commands, styles, animate, and speed. It also describes the name parameter as an output filename stem and output_dir as a directory. While helpful, it could offer more detail on styles structure and command string syntax.

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 'Create a construction from a structured design dict', identifying the action and the resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling geogebra_draw_mechanism by noting the advantage of no JSON string wrapping, making the purpose and differentiation unambiguous.

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 states it is 'Preferred over geogebra_draw_mechanism for AI clients', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude other siblings like geogebra_run_commands or geogebra_new_construction, so while the guidance is strong, it is not exhaustive.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly describes the behavioral steps: new construction, command execution, style application, animation start, auto-zoom, and saving as .ggb and .png. This provides sufficient transparency for an agent, though some potential issues (e.g., error handling) are omitted.

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 long but well-structured with clear sections: general description, templates, JSON format, and workflow. It is front-loaded with purpose. While it could be trimmed slightly, the structure aids readability and earns its length.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema in input but description mentions output files), the description covers workflow, templates, and differentiation. It lacks mention of error handling or prerequisites, but overall is sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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 0%, but the description compensates richly. It explains each parameter: 'name' for filename, 'design_json' with a full JSON format and templates, and 'output_dir' with default. The extensive examples and structure add critical meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Create a complete mechanism: new construction → commands → styles → save .ggb + PNG', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes from sibling 'geogebra_batch' by specifying when to use this tool instead, fulfilling the differentiation criterion.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use geogebra_batch for commands instead of this tool unless you need one-step save.' It also outlines a detailed workflow. However, it does not cover scenarios where the tool should not be used beyond that, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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

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

Thoroughly describes how commands affect the construction, including critical rules for animation. Without annotations, the description fully bears the burden; it covers side effects (creation of objects) but does not discuss error handling or permissions, which is acceptable for a command execution tool.

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 lengthy but well-organized into sections with headings and bullet points. It front-loads the main purpose and critical rules. A bit verbose, but structure earns a high score.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description's lack of return value documentation is acceptable. It covers the tool's usage comprehensively, including examples and critical rules. Missing error behavior notes, but overall 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 has 0% coverage, but the description provides an extensive command reference that fully explains the 'command' parameter's semantics, listing valid commands and their syntax. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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?

Description clearly states the tool executes a single GeoGebra command. The extensive command reference and critical rules make the purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from siblings like geogebra_animate or geogebra_run_commands.

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?

Provides clear workflow instructions: create angle slider first, define dependent points, then call geogebra_animate. Implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on single command execution, but lacks explicit alternatives comparison.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the scale factor range (1-4) but omits details such as whether files are overwritten, authentication requirements, or side effects on the current view.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a brief Args section. Every part serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values are covered. However, the description lacks details on error handling (e.g., existing file, invalid path) and does not confirm that the export is synchronous or blocking.

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. It adds meaning for 'filepath' (save path with example) and 'scale' (factor with range and default). However, it does not detail filepath restrictions or behavior for invalid scale values.

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 '导出当前 GeoGebra 视图为 PNG 截图' (Export current GeoGebra view as PNG screenshot), providing a specific verb (export) and resource (view as PNG). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like geogebra_animate or geogebra_create_construction.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It is transparent about the action and resource, though it does not detail behavior for empty constructions or return format (output schema likely covers that).

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?

A single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words.

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 zero-parameter input and presence of an output schema (as indicated in context signals), the description is complete for this simple tool. No additional details are needed.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies as schema coverage is 100%.

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 retrieves the list of names of all objects in the current construction, using the verb '获取' and specifying the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like geogebra_animate or geogebra_create_construction.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools would be preferred.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only help operation but doesn't explicitly state side effects or confirm non-destructiveness. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not enhanced beyond the implicit purpose.

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 with two sentences: a clear purpose statement and a usage guideline, followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, no 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 purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. It lacks detail on the output format (e.g., text or list), but this is minor for a help 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 description adds full meaning to the 'topic' parameter by listing possible values and their semantics (commands, mechanisms, animation, all). The schema has 0% description coverage and no enum, so the description entirely compensates.

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 provides help for GeoGebra commands and mechanism design, distinguishing it from execution tools like geogebra_create_construction. It specifies the resource (commands and mechanism design) and the action (get help).

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 advises calling this tool before building a mechanism ('在构建机构之前先调用此工具'), providing clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but given sibling tools, the guidance is sufficient.

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

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

The description explicitly states that current objects are cleared, which is a key behavioral trait. Since no annotations are provided, this carries the full burden. However, it does not mention whether unsaved work is lost or if confirmation is required, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. Every word is necessary and there is no wasted text.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description covers the main behavior (create blank, clear objects). It could mention what happens to the current construction (e.g., unsaved changes), but overall it is adequate.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description naturally adds value by clarifying the tool's effect. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the description provides context beyond the empty schema.

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 action: 'Create a new blank GeoGebra construction, clear all current objects.' It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like geogebra_create_construction by explicitly mentioning blank start and clearing.

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 implies usage when a fresh start is needed (clear all objects), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as geogebra_create_construction or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'execute', but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires certain permissions, or error behavior.

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?

Extremely concise three-line description that is front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. No superfluous text.

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?

Covers basic purpose and provides a usage hint, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, preconditions) which would help given the tool modifies constructions.

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 0%, so description must compensate. Provides an example of command format, but does not specify valid command syntax or constraints beyond that.

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 executes multiple GeoGebra commands from a structured list. It differentiates from sibling geogebra_batch by noting it is preferred for AI clients without JSON wrapping.

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?

Explicitly states preference over geogebra_batch for AI clients, giving a clear usage context. However, it does not cover when to use other sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It does not mention overwrite behavior, permissions, or what happens to unsaved changes. The only behavioral detail is the file 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 very short and to the point, with no superfluous text. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points for parameters).

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 simple save operation with one parameter and an existing output schema (not shown), the description is adequate but lacks details on return behavior or error conditions. It does not fully compensate for missing annotations.

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 must compensate. It explains filepath as the save path with a concrete example ("D:/tool/my_mechanism.ggb"), adding value beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 action: saving the current GeoGebra construction as a .ggb file. It specifies the verb (save), resource (current construction), and format (.ggb). This distinguishes it from siblings like export_png or animate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as export_png for images. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility. It only states what the tool does without additional context.

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 the purpose, and lists arguments efficiently. However, it could be better structured with bullet points.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values or provide enough context for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for parameters like color_r/g/b (range 0-1, -1 meaning no change) and ranges for thickness and point_size. However, not all parameters are explained equally.

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 sets object appearance (color, line width, point size, visibility). It is specific about the resource (object appearance) and verb (set), and distinguishes from siblings like geogebra_set_view which sets view.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose non-obvious behaviors (e.g., whether view changes are permanent, require authentication, or affect existing objects). Only parameter values are explained.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the action and one line for parameter semantics. Front-loaded with the action, no redundant content.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is largely complete. It lacks minor contextual details like persistence or app scope, but suffices for basic usage.

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 schema provides no enum or description for the parameter (0% coverage), but the description lists all valid values with their meanings (e.g., 'G'=几何). This fully compensates for the schema gap and enables correct tool 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 description explicitly states the action ('设置 GeoGebra 视图模式' - Set GeoGebra view mode) and the parameter purpose. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like geogebra_set_appearance, but does not elaborate on the scope of the view change.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as geogebra_set_appearance or geogebra_create_construction. The description lacks context for proper selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the tool checks status and construction info. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as being read-only, requiring a running GeoGebra instance, or having no side effects.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. While it could benefit from more structure, it contains no waste and 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists to describe return values, the description is adequate for the low complexity. It covers the core purpose without needing to elaborate on returns.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 checks GeoGebra connection status and current construction information. It uses a specific verb ('检查') and resource ('连接状态和当前构造信息'), and is distinct from siblings like geogebra_version which returns version info.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. For example, it doesn't mention that this should be called before other operations to verify connectivity, nor does it differentiate from geogebra_get_objects for construction details.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the basic behavior (return version) but does not mention any side effects, network calls, or authorization requirements. For a read-only version tool, this may be sufficient but not highly transparent.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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 zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, which is sufficient for a simple version retrieval 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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly leaves it at that.

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 'Returns the MCP Server version number.' It uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('version number'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like geogebra_animate or geogebra_exec.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the simplicity of returning a version makes it obvious. No mention of when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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