飞行到指定经纬度位置（带动画过渡）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pitch | No | 俯仰角（度），-90 为正下方 | |
| height | No | 相机高度（米），默认 50000 | |
| heading | No | 航向角（度），0 为正北 | |
| duration | No | 飞行动画时长（秒） | |
| latitude | Yes | 纬度（-90 ~ 90） | |
| longitude | Yes | 经度（-180 ~ 180） |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools share conceptual boundaries (e.g., addMarker vs addBillboard vs addLabel, addPolyline vs addCorridor vs addWall, flyTo vs setView), though descriptions clarify most cases. The overlap is notable given the large tool count.
All tools use lowerCamelCase with a consistent verb-first pattern (add*, load*, set*, remove*, update*). Some generic verbs like control and update are reused, but the naming is predictable and readable.
43 tools is well beyond the recommended range. Many add* functions for different primitive types could be consolidated into one entity-creation tool, reducing bloat and cognitive load without sacrificing capability.
The tool set offers strong coverage across entities, layers, camera controls, and animations. Minor gaps include lack of entity information retrieval and direct geometry re-editing, but core workflows are well supported.