mil_activity

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool computes a composite score but does not explain how the score is calculated, its range, or what 'overall assessment' entails. Critical behavioral details are missing.

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 a single concise sentence (17 words) that immediately conveys the tool's core function and components. No extraneous information.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not hint at the output format (e.g., numeric score, confidence level). The combination of components is vague, leaving the agent uncertain about what will be returned.

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% with basic lat/lng descriptions. The description adds no further semantic detail beyond the bounding box usage. Since the schema already documents parameters well, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a composite military activity score for a bounding box, combining facility count, restricted airspace, and overall assessment. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual military aspects like aircraft or bases.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mil_bases or mil_airspace. The description does not mention when-not to use it or provide context for selection among the many military-related siblings.

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