describe_area

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Describe') but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention behavior when no area is loaded (e.g., error or empty response). This is a significant gap for a tool that depends on prior state.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. The second sentence provides a practical use case without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 (0 params, existing output schema), the description covers the core purpose and a typical use case. It does not explicitly state the prerequisite of a prior load_area call, but 'loaded area' implies this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for straightforward usage.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, as none is needed, and the empty schema provides complete 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 function with a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('the loaded area's structure'), enumerating key aspects (axes, neighborhoods, landmarks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like geocode or plan_route, which serve different purposes.

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 second sentence provides a clear use case: giving LLMs city-design context before narrating directions. This indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Still, the context is clear and actionable.

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