viewshed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior (returns visible and hidden area, farthest visible distance and a map, scoped to the area containing the point), but says nothing about computational cost, sampling density, or how max_step/max_range affect results.

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-loads the core operation in the first sentence, then adds return contents and use cases without padding. Every sentence earns its place, though the run-on first sentence could be split for readability.

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?

It compensates for the absence of an output schema by describing what is returned. But with 10 parameters at 0% coverage and no sibling differentiation against line_of_sight/sightline_map, an agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently; the definition is adequate but not complete for a tool of this complexity.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only explains one parameter (`target_height`) and the scoping of `point` via 'the area that contains the point'; the remaining eight (cell, names, max_step, max_range, eye_height, agent_height, agent_radius, max_slope_deg) are left entirely undocumented, leaving the agent guessing at units, defaults meaning and interactions.

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 operation (viewshed computation from a point) and the exact geometry it uses, a ray from the eye to a point `target_height` above the floor. This is far more than a tautology and lets an agent understand the resource, but it never names or contrasts the highly similar siblings line_of_sight, sightline_map or raycast.

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?

It offers concrete use cases (spawn visibility, sniper spots, hiding places, objective visibility), which is genuine implied guidance. However it gives no when-not-to-use and no routing to the obvious alternatives line_of_sight or sightline_map, which an agent will struggle to choose between.

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