maritime_export_geojson

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

Given no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it creates a GeoJSON document with WGS84 coordinates, explains properties added by booleans, and notes output formats. It does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or performance implications, but for a read-only export tool, it provides sufficient behavioral context.

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 well-structured with sections, but includes a 'Tips for LLMs' section that partly repeats information from the Args. It is fairly concise for the level of detail, earning a slightly above-average score.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameter functionality, explains the return format (GeoJSON FeatureCollection with count), and provides usage context. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and options (e.g., region list, status options, default values for booleans, output_mode choices). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare JSON schema.

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 it exports wreck positions as a GeoJSON FeatureCollection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_wrecks (list/search) and get_wreck (single wreck details), as it specifically creates a GIS-ready format.

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 explicit tips on using specific parameters (wreck_ids, region, status) and explains the benefits of include_uncertainty and include_voyage_data. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like maritime_search_wrecks or maritime_get_wreck, leaving some ambiguity for when to use this export tool vs. other data retrieval methods.

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