CityJSON specification outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Return' clearly signals a read-only information retrieval operation, and 'bundled' implies the data is local rather than fetched remotely. It identifies what is returned without detailing exact formatting, but for a zero-parameter informational tool that is sufficient.

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 sentence with no redundant phrasing; the verb and object are front-loaded so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the low complexity, zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete for safe invocation. It names both output components, outline and canonical URLs. A brief pointer to cityjson_spec_read for full content would improve context, but is not required for correct usage.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, and the empty schema leaves nothing unknown for caller preparation.

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 ('Return') and a concrete resource: the bundled outline and canonical URLs for the current CityJSON specification and schemas. This is clearly distinct from siblings like cityjson_spec_read and cityjson_schema_read, which imply reading actual content rather than an outline and URLs.

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 implies a quick-reference retrieval use, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. An agent is not told to choose this over cityjson_spec_read or cityjson_schema_read, though the purpose makes the intended context reasonably inferable.

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