sightline_map

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, closed-world profile, and the description adds substantive behavioral detail: the ray-casting computation and the exact return contents (colored heat map, longest sight lines, area over threshold). It omits cost/performance characteristics of the per-cell scan.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does, then outputs, then intended use, in a tight four-sentence block. No filler, though the return-value sentence is dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents the return shape, and annotations cover safety. But for a seven-parameter tool lacking any schema descriptions, several inputs (names, start, max_range) are left undocumented, leaving the definition only partially complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the seven parameters, but it only loosely touches long_sightline (explicit), eye_height, rays and cell. names, start, and max_range are entirely unexplained, with no format, units, or default values given.

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+resource with mechanism: it shoots rays at eye height from every reachable cell and measures visibility, producing a heat map. Distinguishable from single-line siblings like line_of_sight or raycast, though it never names the alternative it is not.

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?

Gives a clear use context (find sniper alleys, verify cover/corners break long views) and cross-references walkable_map for shared agent settings. It stops short of explicit when-not/alternatives routing against viewshed or line_of_sight.

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