CCG Analysis

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate safe, idempotent read. The description adds that it analyzes progressed lines, aspects, and latitude crossings, and includes an example request. No contradiction, but no further behavioral details (e.g., return format, limits).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by group and cost metadata, and an example. It is efficient and includes useful information without excessive verbosity. The structure is clear.

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 complexity (nested schema, many parameters) and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and provides an example, but lacks details on output format and advanced features. Differentiation from many sibling tools is minimal, reducing completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description includes an example request showing the structure, which provides some context beyond the schema's property descriptions. However, it does not explain individual parameters beyond what schema says.

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 analyses CCG lines, specifically progressed A*C*G lines with aspects and latitude crossings. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'acg' by mentioning 'progressed' and 'CCG' (Cyclo-Carto-Graphy), though not explicitly differentiating. The verb 'analyse' and resource 'CCG lines' are specific.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The group tag '[Group: Astro-Geography]' hints at context but does not provide explicit usage conditions or exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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