cesium-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral context such as scene behavior, layering, or persistence. Since annotations cover the mutation profile, the description is neither misleading nor contradictory, but misses an opportunity to add useful details.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward add-operation tool.

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?

With six parameters, a nested position object, and no output schema, the single-sentence description is insufficient. It lacks essential context about when to use this tool, how the billboard behaves in the scene, and how it differs from sibling tools like addMarker or addLabel. The very short description leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly select and invoke it.

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 83% (5 out of 6 parameters have descriptions), with position lacking a description. The tool description itself does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as the meaning of '叠加颜色' (overlay color) or how position is interpreted. It relies on existing schema 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 '在指定位置添加图片图标' (add image icon at specified position) clearly states the action and resource. It specifies the behavior (adding an image icon) and the location requirement, making it distinct from simple 'add' verbs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like addMarker or addLabel, leading to potential ambiguity.

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 addBillboard versus alternative tools. There are no contextual cues, alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. The only implied usage is for adding an image icon at a position, but no distinction from similar add* 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?

Annotations are all false and provide no positive behavioral context. The description does not mention side effects, idempotency, whether the box replaces existing entities, or any return value, leaving the agent without behavioral expectations.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It is highly concise and 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?

The tool has 8 parameters, nested required objects, and no output schema. The one-sentence description omits essential invocation details like position semantics, orientation, and outline options, leaving the description inadequate for correct use.

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?

With only 13% schema description coverage, the description should clarify parameter meaning. It only highlights dimensions and material, ignoring position (required), orientation, outline, and ID fields, so it barely 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?

The description '添加带尺寸和材质的3D盒体' clearly states a specific action (add) and resource (3D box) with relevant attributes (dimensions, material). It differentiates from sibling add* tools by naming the 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 no guidance on when to use addBox versus alternatives like addCylinder or addPolygon. There is no mention of prerequisites, selection criteria, or special scenarios.

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?

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose side effects, return values, coordinate system expectations, or how the corridor entity is treated. For a creation tool with no output schema, this is insufficient.

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 phrase, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy. However, given the tool's complexity (6 parameters), it may be slightly too terse, though this does not detract from its structural clarity.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is not complete enough to guide an agent. It does not explain the meaning of positions (latitude/longitude/height), the purpose of extrudedHeight, or any rendering behavior. The tool's context is largely undefined.

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 does not explain any parameters, while schema description coverage is only 33% (width and material have descriptions). It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters like positions, extrudedHeight, id, or name, nor does it clarify the structure of positions beyond what the schema already shows.

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 '添加走廊（带宽度的路径）' clearly states the tool adds a corridor, defined as a path with width. This distinguishes it from siblings like addPolyline (a path without width) and addWall, making the purpose specific and 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or reference sibling tools. The only implicit hint is 'path with width,' but no direct comparison or usage context is given.

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?

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (all false). The description only states the action without disclosing side effects, reversibility, permissions, or return values. Similar to the update_drive example, this lacks transparency for a mutation 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 a single, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous text. It is appropriately sized and 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 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no meaningful annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits behavioral details, parameter relationships, and any context about how the addition integrates with the scene.

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 meaning by implying that a cone is created when topRadius and bottomRadius differ, which is not explicitly stated in the schema. However, with schema description coverage at 44%, it does not compensate for many undocumented parameters like outline, outlineColor, or position subfields.

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 '添加圆柱体或圆锥体' clearly states the tool adds a cylinder or cone. The verb 'add' and the resource type distinguish it from other add* sibling tools like addBox, addPolygon, etc.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing between similar shape-adding 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?

Annotations are all false/neutral, and the description adds no behavioral context such as side effects, required permissions, or impact on existing entities. The description simply states the action without disclosing any behavioral traits beyond what the name implies, so it provides minimal value.

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 short (three Chinese characters) but is under-specified rather than concise. It does not earn its place because it merely repeats the tool name, and the brevity comes at the cost of clarity and utility.

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 tool with nine parameters, a nested position object, and no output schema, a one-word description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what an ellipse represents in this geospatial context, how parameters like extrudedHeight or outlineColor work, or how this tool fits among the many sibling shape tools.

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 low at 33%, with descriptions only for material, semiMajorAxis, and semiMinorAxis. The description text itself says nothing about parameters, and the schema is left to carry the burden for the remaining six properties, which have no descriptions. This fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 '添加椭圆' (Add ellipse) simply restates the tool name 'addEllipse' in another language, providing no additional specificity or differentiation from sibling add* tools such as addRectangle or addPolygon. This is a tautology that does not clarify the tool's purpose beyond its name.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or scenarios where addEllipse would be preferred over other shape-adding tools, leaving the agent without direction for tool 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?

Annotations are all false, providing no meaningful safety flags. The description adds supported types and rendering modes but does not disclose side effects such as behavior when an existing 'id' is reused or whether the operation is idempotent. No contradiction with annotations, but the description does not carry the full behavioral burden.

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 front-loads the primary action and key capabilities. Every phrase adds value, with no wasted words or 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?

For a tool with four parameters, one nested style object, and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of purpose and key options. The schema covers parameter details well, but the description does not mention return values or potential side effects, leaving slight incompleteness.

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 descriptions cover all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of graduated/categorical rendering aligns with the 'style' parameter's 'choropleth' and 'category' properties, adding marginal context. However, it does not explain individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Add GeoJSON layer to map') and specifies supported geometry types (Point/Line/Polygon) and configurable rendering (color/graduated/categorical). This differentiates it from sibling tools like addPolygon or addPolyline, which likely handle single geometric primitives rather than full GeoJSON layers.

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 the user needs to add a GeoJSON layer, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. No alternative tools are named, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Annotations are minimal (no read-only/destructive hints), and the description adds only the basis of the heatmap (GeoJSON points). It does not disclose side effects, interaction with existing layers, or reversibility. Since the schema and description are straightforward, the absence of deeper behavior disclosure is acceptable but not exceptional.

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, focused sentence that states the tool's function and data requirement. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler or repetition.

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 'add layer' tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient to convey the core purpose. It could mention the return value or layer ID, but the lack is not a significant gap given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with both 'data' and 'radius' clearly documented. The description's mention of 'GeoJSON point data' is redundant with the schema. No additional meaning or usage details are provided, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 adds a heatmap layer generated from GeoJSON point data, using a specific verb ('add') and a distinct resource ('heatmap layer'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like addGeoJsonLayer or addLabel.

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 for creating heatmaps from point data, which is helpful context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like addGeoJsonLayer, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions.

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?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and other hints are false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not explain whether the input data is modified, whether labels are temporary or persistent, or what happens to existing labels. With annotations present, the description still provides little beyond the fact that it 'adds' labels.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary verbiage, and it is easy to scan.

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?

While the schema is detailed, the description is too thin for a mutation tool with no output schema. It lacks information about what the tool returns, how it interacts with the GeoJSON data, or any prerequisites. The user is left without a clear picture of the tool's full behavior.

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 100%, so parameters are well documented. The description adds the link between the 'field' parameter and the displayed attribute value, which reinforces the schema but does not significantly increase understanding beyond it.

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 adds text labels to GeoJSON features and displays attribute values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like addMarker or addPolygon, as it specifies both the resource (GeoJSON features) and the action (adding text annotations).

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 text labels are needed on GeoJSON features, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like addBillboard or addMarker. There is no mention of exclusions or competing tools, so the guidance is only implicit.

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?

Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the useful detail that the tool returns a layerId for subsequent operations. However, it omits behavior around duplicate IDs, overwriting, or idempotency, so transparency is only moderate.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and the important return value without any wasted words. It is concise and appropriately sized.

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 marker-adding tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential return value (layerId), which is particularly important given there is no output schema. It could add more context about duplicate IDs or overlay behavior, but 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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented with descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond mentioning longitude/latitude and the return of layerId; it does not provide extra semantics for id, size, color, or label beyond what the schema already states.

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 that the tool adds a marker point at a specified longitude/latitude and returns a layerId for later operations. It is specific and action-oriented, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling add* tools like addLabel or addBillboard.

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 this tool is for adding marker points, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as addBillboard or addLabel. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given beyond the core action.

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?

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that the tool returns an entityId, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether it replaces existing entities, or any permission/error considerations. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that captures the essential action and return value without waste. Every part 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 straightforward creation tool with a rich schema, the description covers the core purpose and return value. It doesn't explain layer association or removal, but given the simplicity and existing schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents all 9 parameters including defaults and units (degrees, meters, scale). The description does not add parameter-specific semantic details beyond what the schema provides, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 places a 3D model (glTF/GLB) at specified longitude/latitude and returns an entityId. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like addBox or addMarker, which add different geometry types.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need to place a glTF/GLB 3D model at geographic coordinates. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the specific model format and placement scope imply differentiation from other add* siblings.

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?

Annotations are present but all false (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.). The description adds the fact that it returns an entityId, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it doesn't disclose any other behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or 3D mode requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and return value with no fluff or repetition.

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 description and schema together cover the essential information for invoking the tool, including parameter details and the return entityId. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., prerequisites like a loaded map) and potential edge cases, making it adequate but not highly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it only mentions the action in general terms.

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 'Add polygon area (area, boundary) on the map, returns entityId', specifying the verb (add), resource (polygon), and the return value. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like addRectangle or addEllipse.

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. The description merely states what it does, without mentioning conditions, exclusions, or relationships to other add* 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?

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns an entityId, which is a useful behavioral detail not in the schema or annotations. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as whether the polyline is immediately visible, whether it replaces existing entities, or any prerequisites like a loaded map.

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 front-loads the action and resource, and includes the return value. 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 5 parameters and no output schema, and there are many sibling add* tools. The description gives only the purpose and return, but lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and any context about coordinate format or return type beyond the schema. This makes it incomplete for an agent making an informed invocation decision.

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 all five parameters are already documented with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

Description uses a specific verb "添加" (add) with resource "折线" (polyline) and clarifies with "路径、线段" (path, line segment). It also states the return value (entityId), which distinguishes it from sibling add* tools like addPolygon or addLabel. Scope "在地图上" is clear.

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 for adding polylines but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools such as addPolygon or addLabel. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer 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?

All annotations are false (not read-only, not destructive, etc.), so the description must bear the burden of explaining behavioral traits. It only says 'add rectangle', providing no details on side effects, coordinate system expectations, or how the rectangle is inserted into the scene.

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, grammatically complete sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it may be too terse for a tool with this many parameters. Structure is clean; content is minimal.

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 8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no useful annotation hints, the description is far too incomplete. It lacks details on return values, behavior, or coordinate system, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's effects.

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 phrase 'by geographic extent' adds meaning to the required 'coordinates' parameter (west/south/east/north), but with 8 parameters and only 13% schema description coverage, the remaining 7 parameters like height, outline, and extrudedHeight are left undefined. The description insufficiently compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 ('add') and the resource ('rectangle') with a specific scope ('by geographic extent'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like addBox or addPolygon, making the purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it over other add* 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?

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic 'add' operation. It does not mention side effects like entity creation, persistence, or whether it is undoable. Annotations are all false, providing no safety hints, and the description adds no additional context such as constraints on positions or how the wall is rendered.

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, compact phrase with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easy to read, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and a one-line description, the agent lacks vital context about the tool's functionality, return value, relationship to other tools, and usage scenarios. The description is too brief to cover the tool's 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 only 13% (only 'material' has a description). The tool description itself does not mention any parameters, leaving 7 parameters completely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to construct the required 'positions' array or interpret optional fields like 'maximumHeights'.

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 '沿路径添加墙体' translates to 'Add wall along path', which specifies a verb ('add'), a resource ('wall'), and a key constraint ('along path'). This clearly distinguishes it from general 'add' tools like addBox or addMarker, though it could be confused with addCorridor. Overall, it conveys the basic purpose effectively.

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 information about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as addPolyline or addCorridor. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria. The agent is left without guidance on choosing this tool over siblings.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state but is not destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the animation must already exist or what happens on invalid entityId. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 play/pause tool, the schema and annotation provide enough for basic invocation. However, missing context about prerequisites (e.g., animation must exist) and relationship to createAnimation/listAnimations leaves room for confusion. Adequate but not complete for a new agent.

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 for explaining parameters. It does not mention entityId or action at all. The action enum is self-explanatory, but entityId is generic and its meaning is not clarified in the description.

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 '播放或暂停动画' (play or pause animation) clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from create/remove/list animation tools, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like controlClock or playTrajectory which may also control playback.

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 like playTrajectory or controlClock. The intended use is implied but not explicitly stated, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites 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?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating mutation. The description adds that it configures time range, speed, and animation state, which is consistent. It does not disclose potential side effects like resetting the animation or requiring currentTime to be within the range, but for a simple setter this is adequate.

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 front-loads the purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description summarizes the core purpose but does not cover parameter relationships (e.g., currentTime must be within start/stop, clockRange behavior). The schema provides parameter details, but the description is adequate yet not fully complete for edge 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 67%, with startTime, stopTime, multiplier, and currentTime described. The description groups them into time range, speed, and animation state, which adds conceptual clarity. However, it does not clarify clockRange or shouldAnimate beyond their schema definitions, and no parameter-specific details are added.

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 configures the Cesium clock, specifying time range, speed, and animation state. It uses a specific verb (configure) and resource (Cesium clock), and is distinct from sibling tools like controlAnimation or playTrajectory.

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 you need to configure the Cesium clock. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or any prerequisites/exclusions. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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?

Annotations already cover safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds the animation purpose but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether an existing entity must be referenced, how the animation integrates with the scene clock, or side effects on the entity. More context would be valuable.

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, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the information it provides.

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 (7 parameters), the lack of an output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not mention prerequisites (like an existing entity), what the tool returns, or how to control or update the created animation. Users would need to rely on external knowledge to use it correctly.

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 low (29%), with only entityId, model, and waypoint time having descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining parameters like waypoints, loop, pathColor, or modelScale. It only vaguely hints at time-based path behavior, leaving users to infer parameter semantics.

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 creates a time-based path animation with entity movement along a path. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical clarifies the behavior, distinguishing it from static model placement siblings like addModel.

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?

Usage context is implied: the tool is for creating path animations. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings like controlAnimation, updateAnimationPath, or playTrajectory, nor any exclusions 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?

The description adds the behavioral detail of an animated transition, which is not captured by the annotations. However, it does not disclose other aspects like how the camera orientation is affected or that this modifies the current view. Given annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, the bar is lower, but the description still leaves room for more behavioral 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. It is concise and immediately understandable.

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 tool with six parameters, the description is minimal but sufficient given the schema's full parameter coverage. It could mention that this affects the current camera view or highlights the default height/pitch, but the core purpose is clear. The lack of an output schema is acceptable for a camera movement operation.

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 with all six parameters described, including defaults and ranges. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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's action ('fly to') and target resource (specified latitude/longitude position), and the animation transition distinguishes it from sibling camera tools like setView or getView. The verb is specific and the resource is 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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to prefer this tool over alternatives like setView, getView, or zoomToExtent, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended usage is only implied by the name and description.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying what information is returned (latitude, longitude, altitude, angle), which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not mention format or units, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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 front-loads the purpose and includes the key return fields. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary length or filler.

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 getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description clearly states what is returned. However, it lacks specifics such as coordinate reference system, units, or response structure, which would be helpful. Given the low complexity, this is not a major gap.

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 tool has 0 parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 ('获取当前相机视角信息' = get current camera view info) and lists the exact data points (经纬度、高度、角度). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like setView and flyTo, which modify the 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 implies usage for retrieving the current camera view, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Context makes it clear enough, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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 adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive, but the description does not clarify whether highlighting is temporary, whether it affects layer state, or how it interacts with the rendered scene.

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 with no redundancy. It is appropriately short for the tool's simplicity, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 highlight operation with full schema parameter coverage and idempotent annotation, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage context such as when to apply highlighting, how specified layers are identified, or what happens when no featureIndex is provided.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (color, layerId, featureIndex), providing baseline semantics. The description itself adds no additional parameter context, so it stays at the baseline.

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 (highlight) and target (features of the specified layer). It distinguishes from sibling add*/remove* tools by focusing on highlighting existing features rather than creating or removing them.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, selection criteria, or how it relates to other tools like setLayerVisibility or updateLayerStyle.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'active' scope filter, providing useful context, but no further behavioral details are disclosed.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary content, making it highly efficient.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description fully conveys the operation. No output schema exists, but the simplicity of the tool means return format is less critical. The 'active' qualifier is a minor ambiguity but not significant enough to lower the score.

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 has no parameters (0 params), so the description has no parameter burden. Per rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters to document.

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 '列出所有活跃的动画' (List all active animations) uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating it lists active animations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like createAnimation and controlAnimation, which perform different actions.

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 for retrieving active animations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Its simple read-only nature clarifies it serves as a listing function, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance.

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?

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by specifying the returned fields (ID, name, type, visibility) and 'current' state, which goes beyond the annotation metadata. No contradictions.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's action and output contents. There is no wasted text or redundancy with the annotations.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (ID, name, type, visibility) and that it reflects the current state. The robust annotations cover safety, making the description sufficient, though it could optionally mention the return type (e.g., array) or empty behavior.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter semantics; the baseline score of 4 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 uses a specific verb '获取' (get) and identifies the resource '所有图层列表' (all layers list), specifying the included fields (ID, name, type, visibility). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that add, update, or remove layers.

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 clear context—it lists all current layers—but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The use case is implied via its sibling tools, but no direct comparison is made.

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?

Annotations provide no positive safety hints (readOnlyHint false, etc.), and the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects like adding a layer, potential duplicate loading if called multiple times, or any requirements beyond the URL, leaving significant behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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, focused sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and provides an illustrative example. It is concise without redundant phrasing.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema) and lack of behavioral annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It explains the purpose and gives a context example but omits behavioral outcomes or typical usage scenarios. The schema covers parameters well, making the description minimally viable.

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 already includes descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning; it only mentions the type of data being loaded.

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 function as loading 3D Tiles datasets, with specific examples (e.g., building white models, city models) that distinguish it from sibling tools such as loadImageryService or loadTerrain.

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 the tool is used for loading 3D Tiles but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It solely states the intended resource type.

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?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action. It does not disclose whether loading replaces existing layers, requires network permissions, or has side effects like duplicate layers if called twice.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the core purpose and accepted service types.

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 description is minimal and does not elaborate on differences between the four service types or how parameters like layerName and opacity interact. Given 6 parameters and multiple protocols, more guidance would be helpful, though the schema covers parameter descriptions.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the service types that are already in the schema enum and does not add any new parameter meaning or usage nuance.

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 '加载影像服务图层（WMS/WMTS/XYZ/ArcGIS MapServer）' clearly states the action (load) and resource (imagery service layer), and explicitly lists supported service types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like load3dTiles and loadTerrain.

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 mentioned service types (WMS/WMTS/XYZ/ArcGIS MapServer) provide clear context for when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit statement about when not to use it or alternatives. Sibling names imply alternatives, but no exclusion guidance is given.

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?

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only adds the notion of 'switching', which implies replacing the current terrain. It does not elaborate on effects (e.g., whether existing terrain is removed) or expected outcomes, but no contradiction exists.

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, compact sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and supported provider types. There is zero redundancy or filler.

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 complexity (3 params, no output schema) and rich structuralschema/annotations, the description is adequate. It defines the resource and provider options. The only minor gap is not explicitly noting parameter dependencies (e.g., cesiumIonAssetId when provider=cesiumion), but the schema already covers this.

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 fully documents each parameter (provider, url, cesiumIonAssetId). The description merely repeats the provider enum values, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 function: '加载或切换地形' (load or switch terrain), with specific provider types listed (flat/ArcGIS/CesiumIon/custom URL). This verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like load3dTiles or setBasemap, which target different data types.

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?

Usage context is implied by the title and description ('load or switch terrain'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling tools show related operations but the description does not reference them.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds behavioral context with 'orbital' and 'ENU transform', but does not disclose whether the camera animates or jumps, or any side effects. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes relevant technical context (ENU, heading/pitch/range). It is appropriately concise, though it could arguably be more structured.

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 moderate-complexity tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description relies on the schema and annotations for completeness. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and distinction from sibling camera tools. It is minimally viable but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters with Chinese descriptions. The description mentions heading/pitch/range and ENU transform, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 function: an orbital camera looks at a given position (环绕式相机注视某位置), with specific details on ENU transformation and control over heading/pitch/range. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the 'orbital' aspect distinguishes it from generic view/flyTo tools, earning a 4.

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—make the camera orbit/look at a target—but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like flyTo, setView, or startOrbit. There are no exclusions or alternative mentions, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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?

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not mention side effects, whether existing animations are stopped, concurrency implications, or what the function returns. For a playback tool, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters. It is concise, yet the brevity limits its usefulness.

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 (six parameters), lack of output schema, and absent behavioral annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'play' means in terms of observable effects, duration, or interaction with other animation tools.

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%, with all six parameters documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics fully.

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 '播放移动轨迹动画' clearly states the action (play) and resource (trajectory animation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like createAnimation, removeAnimation, and updateAnimationPath by focusing on the playback aspect, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context 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?

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds no extra context about side effects, reversibility, or what happens to associated resources; it merely restates the tool's function.

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 brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise in a helpful way. It states the action without adding meaningful detail.

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 destructive tool with one parameter, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify the meaning of entityId, the scope of 'animation entity', or any consequences, leaving significant gaps.

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 one required entityId with no description, and the description does not explain what entityId refers to or how to obtain it. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate.

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 '删除动画实体' (delete animation entity) uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool removes an animation entity. It is distinct from add* tools and somewhat from removeEntity/removeLayer, though it could be clearer about how it differs from removeEntity.

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 vs alternatives like removeEntity or controlAnimation. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions 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?

The description adds the scoping detail that the tool removes a single entity, and the annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which are consistent. However, it does not disclose consequences such as irreversibility or behavior for nonexistent IDs beyond what annotations imply.

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, front-loaded sentence without any redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

While the tool is simple and annotations cover safety, the description lacks usage differentiation from sibling remove tools, and does not specify outcomes or error behavior. Enough for invocation but not fully complete in context.

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 fully describes the entityId parameter with a description, and the description's mention of entityId adds no additional semantic value. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies.

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 '移除' (remove) and the resource '单个实体' (single entity), with the method via entityId. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like removeAnimation and removeLayer.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage direction.

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 aligns with the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by stating it removes a layer. It does not add extra behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as permanence or side effects, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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 fully communicates the tool's purpose without any wasted words or unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and 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 the tool's simplicity, one required parameter with full schema coverage, and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is sufficiently complete. It lacks only minor details like return value or side effects, but these are not critical for a removal operation.

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 100%, and the parameter description already explains that the ID can be obtained via listLayers. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 action (remove), the resource (layer from map), and the method (by layer ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like removeEntity and removeAnimation by explicitly targeting layers.

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: use this tool to remove a layer by ID. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., removeEntity) or mention any prerequisites beyond the ID being available via listLayers, which is only in the schema, not the main description.

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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return format (base64 PNG), which is useful, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like resolution or synchronization. This aligns with the lower bar set by the annotations.

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, focused sentence that conveys the action and output format without any filler. It is front-loaded 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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete: it states what the tool does and the return format. No additional context is necessary for this simple 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 uses a clear verb '截取' (capture) with a specific resource '当前地图视图' (current map view) and adds the output format 'base64 PNG'. It is distinct from all sibling tools since none are screenshot-specific.

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 context is clear: use when you need to capture the current map view as an image. No exclusions or alternatives are needed because no sibling serves a similar purpose. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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?

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety aspects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the action and listing style options already present in the schema. No side effects, scope, or return behavior are disclosed.

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?

Description is a single, well-structured Chinese sentence that front-loads the action and lists all three options. No redundant words or filler.

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 setter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It conveys the core function, and annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness. Missing context like scope (global vs. local) is not critical but could be clarified.

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 100% parameter description coverage, fully explaining the 'basemap' enum with Chinese/English mappings. The tool description merely repeats this information, adding no extra meaning, so 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('切换' = switch) and resource ('底图风格' = basemap style), enumerating the three options. It is distinct from sibling tools like setLayerVisibility or setCameraOptions, which target different scene elements.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use when wanting to change the basemap style. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, which is acceptable for such a simple tool but lacks explicit context.

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?

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to disclose safety. The description adds the specific control toggles (rotate, zoom, tilt) but does not mention whether omitted parameters are left unchanged or reset to defaults, which is a behavioral nuance not covered by annotations.

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 front-loads the core action (configure camera controller) and lists the main toggles. Every segment is meaningful, with no redundant or filler 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?

The tool is simple, with all parameters optional and fully described in the schema. However, the description does not clarify the behavior when optional parameters are omitted (e.g., whether they default to false or remain unchanged), which is a meaningful gap given there are no required parameters. This prevents the agent from reliably predicting the outcome of partial configurations.

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 describes all 5 boolean parameters with clear descriptions (enable look, tilt, zoom, rotate, translate), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond listing some of these parameters, so it meets the baseline for schema-heavy parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb '配置' (configure) with a clear resource '相机控制器' (camera controller) and specifies the actions (enable/disable rotate, zoom, tilt, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling camera tools like flyTo, setView, and lookAtTransform that move the camera rather than configure its controls.

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 for enabling/disabling camera control features, and the sibling tool names clarify that other tools handle camera movement rather than control configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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 adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. It confirms the toggle nature but does not describe return values, persistence, or interaction between parameters. The idempotent and non-destructive hints already cover safety.

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 phrase with no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the action.

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 setter with fully described parameters and idempotent annotation, the description is adequate, but it lacks any usage context or explanation of combined effects.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. It maps conceptually to 'lighting and atmosphere' but does not explain individual toggles beyond 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 tool enables or disables globe lighting and atmospheric effects. This is a specific action on a specific resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that add entities or control animation.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context or exclusions.

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?

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name. It does not explain what happens when visibility is changed or any side effects, so it fails to add value beyond structured fields.

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 short sentence, making it concise. However, it essentially restates the tool name and provides no additional information, so it does not fully 'earn its place' despite being compact.

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 simple nature of the tool and strong schema/annotation coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks contextual details about the tool's effect on the scene or how it relates to sibling layers tools, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 covers both parameters (id, visible) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter information, so the baseline score of 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 '设置图层可见性' (Set layer visibility) clearly states the tool's action on a specific resource (layer visibility). It is unambiguous but does not differentiate from sibling tools like updateLayerStyle or updateEntity, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states what it does, offering no contextual usage information.

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?

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds the behavioral trait of an instantaneous, non-animated camera movement. This is valuable context not present in structured annotations and does not contradict them.

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, compact sentence in Chinese that front-loads the action ('instantly switch') and states the key differentiator ('no animation'). Every word contributes value, with no wasted elements.

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 straightforward view-setting tool with a fully documented schema and supporting annotations, the description sufficiently covers the essential behavior and the no-animation trait. Absence of return-value details is acceptable given no output schema exists.

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 already describes all six parameters, including defaults and constraints, so schema coverage is 100%. The description only reiterates that longitude/latitude are the specified target, adding no additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides.

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: instantly switch to a specified longitude/latitude view, and explicitly adds 'no animation' (无动画), distinguishing it from siblings like flyTo that likely animate. The verb 'switch' plus the resource 'specified lon/lat view' is specific and 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 phrase 'no animation' provides clear context for when to use this tool (instant snap to a view) and implicitly indicates when not to use it (if animated transition is desired). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like flyTo, so it falls short of a fully explicit usage guide.

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?

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'current center' scoping, but does not disclose details such as whether the orbit continues indefinitely, whether an existing orbit is replaced, or that stopOrbit is needed to end it. This is acceptable but not rich behavioral 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action with no filler or redundancy. It is optimally concise for a simple start-command.

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 tool with two optional parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the orbit continues until stopped (perhaps referencing stopOrbit), but the sibling naming and idempotent hint make the behavior adequately discoverable.

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 covers speed with a description and direction with an enum (clockwise/counterclockwise), so parameters are mostly self-explanatory despite only 50% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter details, but the schema provides enough meaning for an agent to select correct 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 a specific action: 'Start camera orbiting around current center' (开始相机环绕当前中心旋转). It identifies the verb (start), the resource (camera), and the scope (around current center), distinguishing it from siblings like stopOrbit and setCameraOptions.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the sibling tool name 'stopOrbit' strongly implies that startOrbit is for beginning an orbit and stopOrbit for ending it. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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 adds no behavioral details beyond what the name and annotations already imply. It does not mention whether the stop affects all orbit animations or a specific one, whether it is reversible, or what state changes occur. The idempotentHint annotation is not reinforced with any contextual explanation.

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 phrase with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, perfectly sized for its simplicity.

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, the description conveys the core action adequately, but it lacks context about the scope of the operation (e.g., whether it stops a specific animation or all animations) and any potential side effects. The annotations provide some safety cues, but the description leaves room for interpretation in ambiguous scenarios.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not expected to explain parameter details. Baseline 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add regarding input semantics.

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 ('stop') and the target ('orbit animation'), making it specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like startOrbit, controlAnimation, and removeAnimation. It is direct and unambiguous, providing a precise verb+resource pairing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as controlAnimation or removeAnimation. The description only states the action without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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?

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the camera-focused behavioral context ('camera tracks entity'), which is useful, but it does not disclose whether tracking is continuous, one-time, or how it interacts with existing camera animations or entity visibility.

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 no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It is a single short phrase that conveys the core action but lacks the detail needed for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 one-parameter tool with idempotent annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify the expected behavior (e.g., whether the camera follows the entity over time) or the nature of the entityId, leaving some ambiguity.

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 does not mention the entityId parameter at all, though the parameter name is self-explanatory. No additional semantics about what entityId refers to (e.g., must be an existing entity) are provided.

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 '相机追踪实体' clearly states the action: the camera tracks an entity. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from general camera controls like flyTo or setCameraOptions, though it does not explicitly differentiate among the many camera-related sibling tools.

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 lookAtTransform, flyTo, or updateEntity. The description gives no context for choosing it over sibling tools with similar camera-control purposes.

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?

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description merely restates the basic function without adding context about prerequisites, side effects, or error behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient with no extraneous wording, though it may be overly terse for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to identify the animation path, what values are valid, or what happens after the update. The annotation hints cover safety but not functional 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 description provides no information about the parameters (show, color, width, entityId). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining parameter meanings, formats, or relationships.

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 'update' and the resource 'animation path', specifically targeting 'visual properties' (可视属性). This distinguishes it from siblings like controlAnimation or createAnimation, though it does not explicitly contrast with other update tools.

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 updateEntity or updateLayerStyle. The description only states the action without any context for 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?

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the specific set of updatable properties but does not disclose additional behavioral details like error handling, partial update semantics, or what happens if the entity doesn't exist. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate.

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 fully captures the tool's purpose and scope. No redundant words or fluff.

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 an update tool with a well-defined schema and annotations, the description is sufficient to understand the operation. It doesn't describe return values, but no output schema exists and for an update operation the return is often trivial. The main gap is lack of explicit error/edge-case behavior, but this is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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 full descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the description's enumeration of properties adds little beyond the schema. It doesn't provide extra context about parameter formats, defaults, or interactions between parameters.

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 uses a specific verb '更新' (update) with a clear resource '已有实体' (existing entity), and enumerates the properties it can modify: position, color, label, scale, visibility. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling add/remove tools.

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 phrase '已有实体' (existing entity) implies this tool is for modifying existing entities, not creating or removing them, which helps differentiate from add* and remove* siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as whether style objects are merged or replaced, or whether the layer must already exist. It simply restates the modify intent, so it is adequate but not enriching.

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 in Chinese that front-loads the action and target without any filler. It earns its place with 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 moderate complexity of the tool (3 parameters, nested objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not address whether style updates are partial or full replacements, nor does it mention that layerId must reference an existing layer. The schema and annotations fill most gaps, but the description leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 layerId, labelStyle, and layerStyle are all described in the schema. The description only mentions examples (color, opacity, label style) that mirror the schema properties, adding no new meaning. The optionality and structure are already clear from 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 uses the specific verb '修改' (modify) and resource '已有图层的样式' (existing layer's style), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like updateEntity (which updates entities) and setLayerVisibility (which only toggles visibility). It precisely identifies the action and target.

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 like updateEntity or setLayerVisibility. It does not state exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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?

The description adds no behavioral details beyond what the annotations already provide. It does not mention animation, how the current view is affected, or any side effects, so the description contributes little to understanding the tool's runtime 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly under-specified for its 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 that this is a camera manipulation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention the animation duration, the bounding box semantics, or how it relates to other view tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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%, with each parameter (east, west, north, south, duration) having its own description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 '缩放到指定地理范围' clearly states the tool zooms to a specified geographic extent, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like flyTo or setView, which also manipulate the camera 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like flyTo, setView, or setCameraOptions. The description provides no usage context, exclusions, or mention of alternatives.

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