generate_field_visualization_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'generates code' but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or that it only returns code without executing it. It also does not disclose potential prerequisites like authentication or external dependencies. The description is not misleading, but it could be more explicit about the nature of the output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, using three short sentences plus a bolded use case. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words. Every sentence adds meaningful context.

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 (2 parameters, output schema present) and the clear description, nothing essential is missing. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. It is complete for its intended function.

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 covers 100% of the parameters, with clear descriptions for both 'field_id' (ZTF field ID 1-1895) and 'ccd_id' (optional CCD ID to highlight, with default behavior). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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's purpose: 'Generate code to visualize ZTF field and CCD coverage.' It specifies the exact resource (ZTF field and CCD) and the action (generate code to create sky maps). This is easily distinguished from sibling tools that generate other types of code (light curves, cone searches, alerts).

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 an explicit use case: 'When you need to visualize which parts of the sky are covered by specific ZTF fields or CCDs.' It also explains the utility ('understanding coverage and planning observations'). However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which would make it a 5.

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