build_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important operational fact: 'Keyless (public imagery + Terrain3D elevation)', which tells the agent no credentials or setup are needed. It says nothing about side effects, whether a scene is persisted/published, or rendering cost, so the write/read profile remains ambiguous.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the use case. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and the concrete examples land at the end where they help most.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the description adequately covers what the tool produces and when to reach for it. The remaining gap is invocation-level: no guidance on tilt values, when to enable labels, or allowed basemaps, which matters given a 0%-described schema.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. Only 'tilted camera' loosely hints at the tilt parameter and 'imagery' at the basemap default; labels, title, and the meaning of dataset_ids are left entirely undocumented in both schema and 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?

States a specific verb+resource: rendering datasets as a 3D scene with terrain relief and a tilted camera. The opening 'Same datasets, rendered in a 3D scene' implicitly contrasts with the 2D sibling build_map, though it never names it. An agent can tell what it produces, if not exactly how it differs from build_map's static output.

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?

'Use it when relief, height or a walk-through view matters — towers, slopes, trails, coastal context' gives a concrete selection criterion tied to the user's intent. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to build_map when a flat map suffices, so the alternative is implied rather than stated.

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