Surface heightmap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses output structure and grid orientation, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, how 'surface' is determined, or how sampling affects the result. This leaves some uncertainty for an agent.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary output is stated first, followed by the practical use case. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 heightmap query tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the return format, coordinate orientation, and practical application. It could be more explicit about edge cases or the exact surface definition, but the core information an agent needs is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds useful context about the x/z rectangle and grid orientation, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for individual parameters like 'world' or 'sample'.

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 what the tool returns: surface y and surface block for an x/z rectangle as a sampled grid. It also names the practical use case ('site-scouting tool') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by its specific read-only terrain query purpose.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to find flat ground and determine the y level to build at. It does not explicitly name exclusion criteria or alternative tools, but the use case is specific enough to guide selection.

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