hlod_generate

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether running the builder is destructive, whether it modifies the active map or generated assets, how long it might take, or what prerequisites are needed. The example hints at setup and build modes but does not explain consequences or return 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a KB pointer and a useful example. There is no redundant fluff. The KB line is slightly meta rather than directly actionable, but it does not hurt readability.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in all cases. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the KB link helps, but prerequisite conditions, side effects, and most parameter meanings remain unspecified. The example covers one common path but not the full parameter space.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description is responsible for explaining the 9 parameters, but it only mentions setup, build, and layer in the example. Params like force, stats, delete, extra_args, report_only, and actor are left entirely unexplained. The example demonstrates a typical invocation but does not compensate for the missing semantics of the other 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 states a specific action ('Run the World Partition HLOD builder commandlet') and a clear scope ('for the active map'). It is more specific than the tool name alone and is understandable without needing to inspect the schema. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling hlod_assign_layer, but the action is clearly about generating/building HLODs rather than assigning actors.

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 through the example call and the active-map scope, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as hlod_assign_layer or the wp_* tools. It provides no exclusions or preconditions like requiring the map to be saved or HLOD layers to exist beforehand. The KB link is a useful pointer but does not itself contain usage guidance in the description.

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