debim_urban_ingest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the external data source (Overpass API), hinting at network dependency, but says nothing about rate limits, failure modes, where the generated manifest YAML is written, or whether the operation is destructive/overwriting. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described.

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?

One front-loaded sentence establishing purpose and output, followed by a compact Args block that adds real value. Slightly docstring-flavored but no wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema covers the return shape, and all params are explained, but for a tool with zero annotations that performs external network fetches and generates a file artifact, the description should say where the manifest is written and what error conditions look like. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, yet the description documents all three parameters meaningfully — critically, it gives the bbox element ORDER [min_lat, min_lon, max_lat, max_lon], which the schema's bare number array does not convey, and explains crs_epsg as a metric UTM code with the Thailand 32647 default. It omits what happens when both or neither of bbox/geojson_str are supplied, which is the remaining gap.

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?

States a specific verb (ingest), the source (OpenStreetMap Overpass API bounding box or GeoJSON), and the concrete output artifact (native .debim urban manifest YAML). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like debim_compile_ifc, debim_qto, and debim_validate.

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 phrase 'bounding box or GeoJSON string' implies two alternative input modes, but the description never states whether they are mutually exclusive, that at least one is required (all params optional, zero required), or when a user should prefer one over the other. No when-not guidance and no mention of siblings as alternatives.

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