inspect_landscape

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'read structural properties', indicating a read-only operation. It notes that LandscapeGuid mutates on PIE/instancing while OriginalLandscapeGuid is stable, adding useful behavior detail. No side effects or contradictions are present.

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, packing significant detail without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While the second sentence is somewhat long, it remains clear and efficient. Minor structural improvement (e.g., bullet points) could enhance readability, but it is still effective.

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 no output schema, the description lists the returned properties (component dimensions, total component count, etc.), giving the agent a clear idea of what to expect. It also addresses lookup nuances. Among many sibling Inspect* tools, it clearly distinguishes itself. Slight omission of output format (JSON vs text) but overall complete.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that the 'guid' parameter accepts either LandscapeGuid or OriginalLandscapeGuid, and clarifies the fallback behavior when both are omitted. This provides richer meaning.

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 reads structural properties of an ALandscape, listing specific properties (component dimensions, total component count, landscape material, bounds, two GUIDs) and explaining lookup methods. It distinguishes itself from sibling Inspect* handlers by noting landscapes have no .uasset, making the purpose very specific and unambiguous.

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 explains how to use the tool (by actor label or GUID, with fallback to the only landscape). It implies when to use it (for landscape structural properties) and contrasts with sibling Inspect* tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites (e.g., landscape existence), but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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