depth_to_normal_map_generator

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 discloses the algorithm (Sobel convolution) and output format (16-bit RGB tangent-space), but does not mention return representation (e.g., image bytes, URL), error handling, or any side effects beyond the pricing note. This is a moderate gap for a generator tool.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and method. The pricing note is appended succinctly without distracting from the core function. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the core transformation and output format but omits critical details an agent needs to invoke it correctly: the exact JSON structure for the payload, how the normal map is returned (file, base64, etc.), and any constraints on image dimensions or depth range. With no output schema and no annotation support, these gaps make the tool incomplete for autonomous use.

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 payload description is generic ('Input parameters or JSON string payload'). The description adds crucial semantic value by specifying that the payload should contain a grayscale depth buffer or heightmap, which the schema alone does not convey. This exceeds the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Synthesizes'), a clear resource ('16-bit RGB tangent-space normal maps'), and the input type ('grayscale depth buffers or elevation heightmaps') with the method ('Sobel spatial gradient convolution'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like optimize_3d_mesh or convert_gltf_to_obj.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a depth buffer or heightmap and need a normal map. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the unique purpose provides clear context. No misleading guidance.

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