l2_gen_terrain

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states generation of terrain but omits details like side effects, performance, or that it produces a PNG file (implied by output parameter). Minimal behavioral info beyond schema.

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?

Single short sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and options (terrain types). No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should clarify return value. It mentions 'heightmap terrain' but does not specify that the output is a PNG file or describe the format. Context is adequate but not fully complete for a file-generation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description lists terrain types but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It does not explain parameters like seed, size, or output beyond what schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Generate' and resource 'procedural heightmap terrain', listing specific types (hills, mountains, plains, island, noise). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like l2_gen_normal_map and l2_generate_textures.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., l2_gen_normal_map for normal maps, l2_generate_textures for general textures). The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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