Create GeoJSON / OSM city visualization

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

The description reveals key behaviors beyond annotations: it reads features, projects coordinates, builds a Script SOP, optionally extrudes using 'height' property, and wraps everything in a Geometry COMP with a camera+light Render TOP. It also notes OSM attribution requirements. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true).

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then details the process. It is informative without being verbose, though it could be more structured (e.g., separate sections). The OSM attribution note is included but does not detract from conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: input format, geometry support, projection, extrusion, and preview setup. It covers the main use case (city visualization) and legal considerations. Missing details like output appearance (3D city) are implied.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the projection process, how extrusion works (using 'height' property, default_height), and the geojson structure expectations. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions alone.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Turn GeoJSON... into a 3D city visualization.' It specifies supported geometry types (Point, LineString, Polygon, Multi*), projection method (Mercator), extrusion capability, and preview setup (Geometry COMP + Render TOP). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_data_visualization' or 'create_3d_scene' by focusing on GeoJSON input.

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 implicitly indicates usage when you have GeoJSON data, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for non-geographic data or other 3D visualizations). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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