Reproject CityJSON

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation uses cjio, requires an existing CRS, and returns a new dataset_id, which communicates the non-in-place nature of the result. However, it does not mention whether the original dataset is modified, how the optional 'digit' affects transformation, or failure behavior if the source lacks a CRS.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler: the operation, the key prerequisite, and the result type. Information is front-loaded and each sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 transformation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is missing meaningful context about the 'digit' parameter, side effects on the source dataset, and possible error conditions. The included return value and prerequisite are useful but insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 only 33%; only dataset_id has a schema description. The description helps with 'epsg' by stating 'target EPSG CRS', but provides no information about the 'digit' parameter, leaving its purpose ambiguous. It does not compensate enough for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reproject') and names the target resource ('coordinates to a target EPSG CRS'), making the operation clear. It implies a distinction from assign_crs by requiring the source to already define a CRS, but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 statement 'The source dataset must already define a CRS' provides an explicit prerequisite, helping an agent decide when this tool is appropriate. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' alternatives, but the prerequisite offers clear contextual guidance.

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