mil_nuclear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states what the tool finds, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data sources, update frequency, response format, or limitations. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and scope. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is brief. It explains the input and purpose but lacks details about outputs, error handling, or result limits. For a simple bounding box query, this is adequate but not 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?

All four parameters (south, west, north, east) are described in the schema with latitude/longitude labels and bounds. The description adds minimal extra meaning by linking them to a bounding box for nuclear facilities. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool finds nuclear facilities (power plants, research reactors, enrichment sites) within a bounding box. The verb 'find' and specific resource types are clearly communicated, distinguishing it from many sibling tools like mil_bases or mil_aircraft.

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 indicates using a bounding box to find nuclear facilities, implying a spatial query. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools, but the context of many sibling tools makes the usage reasonably clear.

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