terrain_prominence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions querying a 'grid of elevation points' but omits details about return format, data source, performance, or any limitations. The agent is left guessing what the output will be.

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 consists of two sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds context for usage. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns (e.g., coordinates and elevation values for max/min). It does not, leaving the agent partially uninformed. However, it adequately explains the method and purpose, so it is adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter already described in the input schema. The description's mention of 'bounding box area' and 'grid of elevation points' does not add new meaning beyond the schema definitions, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find the highest and lowest points in a bounding box area by querying a grid of elevation points.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('highest and lowest points'), and the mention of 'terrain prominence and relief analysis' distinguishes it from sibling tools like terrain_elevation or terrain_profile.

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 identifies a use case ('terrain prominence and relief analysis') but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools.

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