analyze_terrain

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

Without annotations, the description compensates by explaining the internal process: 'Fetches 30m SRTM elevation data, runs RCAN super-resolution to 10m, and computes terrain analytics.' This provides transparency into data sources and processing steps, though it does not cover limitations or failure modes.

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 organized with a one-sentence summary, then parameter details, and a returns section. It is informative without being overly verbose. The bullet-like listing of metrics could be more concise, but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs adequately and gives a summary of outputs including the Site Intelligence Score. However, it lacks specifics on output format or units for metrics, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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%, but the description adds full semantic meaning to all parameters. It explains latitude/longitude ranges, and for bbox_size_m it specifies units, range, and default. This goes well beyond the schema which only has titles and types.

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 'Analyze terrain at a given location and return a Site Intelligence Score summary,' specifying both the action and the resource. It mentions the return of a specific score, which helps distinguish it from the sibling tool 'get_full_terrain_data' that likely provides more detailed output.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_full_terrain_data.' There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred or when it should be avoided, leaving the AI agent without clear decision-making support.

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