Geology

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses default fog-of-war behavior, omission of undiscovered caverns and magma sea, the debug/spoiler nature of reveal_hidden, the error response when no fort is loaded, and clarifies that it reports what exists rather than digging directions. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 dense and long, but every clause adds unique value, such as the distinction between surface_z_max and surface_z_at_core, the meaning of permanent_freeze, and the format of layer stacks. It is front-loaded with a summary sentence and then systematically details outputs. The length is justified but could be made more scannable with bullet points.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values entirely. It does so comprehensively, covering each output category, their formats, exclusions, error handling, and the effect of reveal_hidden. This makes the tool fully understandable without external documentation.

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?

The schema already has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the reveal_hidden parameter's bypass behavior, naming the returned fields (caverns_hidden, magma_hidden), and labeling it as a debug/spoiler switch. This goes beyond the schema's description, earning a 4.

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 it performs a geological survey of the embark and enumerates specific return values (surface_z_max, layer stack, aquifer, caverns, magma sea, surface water). It also distinguishes itself from map_overview by explicitly contrasting surface_z_max with surface_z_at_core, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, notably contrasting with map_overview and explaining how results can be fused with wiki_lookup and game_data. It also clarifies the default behavior and when the reveal_hidden parameter should be used, offering clear context for tool selection.

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