A*C*G Influence Zones

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so safety profile is clear. The description adds the default 700-mile orb and cost info, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like output format or limits beyond radiusDeg. With annotations present, the description provides minor added context.

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 concise: two sentences plus an example. It includes metadata like group and cost efficiently. No unnecessary words, though the example could be integrated more succinctly. Overall well-structured for its content.

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?

The description does not explain what the tool returns (output format), which is critical since there is no output schema. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'acg' or 'local_space_influence_zone'. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete for a standalone tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for the body parameter and its nested properties. The description provides an example request body which aids understanding, but the schema already conveys parameter meaning. No additional semantic value is added beyond the schema.

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 the tool calculates radius zones around A*C*G lines with a default orb, specifying the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'acg' or 'local_space_influence_zone' that may compute similar zones, so purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'acg' or 'local_space_influence_zone'). The example request body hints at usage but does not explain prerequisites or context. Explicit when/when-not instructions are absent.

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