mil_bases

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention query limits, update frequency, potential missing features, or how the data is returned. Only the basic function is described.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. All necessary information is front-loaded: action, target, scope, source.

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 simple parameter set and no output schema, the description is sufficient for basic understanding. However, it could mention the output format or typical response structure to be fully complete.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (south, west, north, east). The description adds 'bounding box' context but does not provide additional details or examples beyond what the schema offers.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Find'), the resources ('military bases, barracks, airfields, ranges, and bunkers'), the geographic scope ('in a bounding box'), and the data source ('using OpenStreetMap data'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'osm_military' by specifying the types of military features.

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. The bounding box constraint is implied but there is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with similar tools like 'osm_military' or 'geo_bbox'.

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