Vulcan Drillhole Databases (.dhd.isis) & 3D Display

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses several behaviors: holes are paginated, schema returns tables/fields/string_fields/hole count, high_grade scans for intercepts, and display/clear_display affect Vulcan's 3D viewport. However, it does not state permissions, whether any action mutates project data, or whether display changes persist.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then structured as a clean action list. Every line contributes concrete action or parameter information, with no repetitive filler.

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?

For a 7-action, 12-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the definition is useful but incomplete. It explains most actions and several return contents, but it omits return shapes for some actions, error conditions, prerequisites such as Vulcan needing to be running, and full behavioral details.

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%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does a good job mapping parameters to actions: db/limit/offset for holes, db/table/field/min_value/limit for high_grade, and display-specific options. Gaps remain for mode, save_layer, max_segments, and the expected format of db/hole/table/field values.

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 names a specific resource (ISIS Drillhole Databases, .dhd.isis) and enumerates the supported data domains: collars, surveys, assays, lithology, and 3D display. The action list makes the tool's scope concrete and clearly distinct from sibling tools such as vulcan_block_model or vulcan_triangulation.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: working with drillhole databases and rendering drillholes in Vulcan's 3D viewport. Each action is briefly described, but there are no explicit exclusions or guidance on when to prefer another tool for overlapping tasks.

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