ue_landscape_export_heightmap

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

The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that RGBA8 outputs PNG while float formats output HDR, and that into_rg_channel packs 16-bit height data into R and G channels. However, it does not disclose side effects like file overwriting, directory creation, or behavior when the specified landscape doesn't exist. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but leaves some gaps.

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 and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose, a brief note on format behavior, then a clean list of parameter explanations. No wasted words; each sentence 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?

The description covers all parameters and key format behavior, making it largely complete for a 6-parameter export tool with no annotations. However, it omits some contextual details such as whether the output directory is created automatically, whether existing files are overwritten, or how errors are handled when the landscape is missing. These are non-critical gaps given the thorough parameter documentation.

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 six parameters are explicitly described with clear semantics: output_dir is the local destination folder, file_name includes the extension, label selects the landscape, resolution sets the square render target side, rt_format enumerates accepted values, and into_rg_channel explains the channel packing. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description 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 tool's purpose: 'Esporta l'heightmap del landscape come immagine sul disco' (exports the landscape heightmap as an image to disk). It uses a specific verb and resource, and is easily distinguished from siblings like ue_landscape_import_heightmap.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and purpose.

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