terrain_viewshed

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions considering terrain elevation along the path, but does not specify the algorithm, assumptions (e.g., Earth curvature, atmospheric refraction), or output format. The return value is implied to be a boolean visibility result but not explicitly stated.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more concise by removing 'between two points' since that's implied by observer and target.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value (e.g., boolean, percentage, or line-of-sight path). It does not, nor does it mention data source prerequisites or geographic coverage. This leaves the agent uncertain about what the tool returns.

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% for all 6 parameters, each with clear descriptions including min/max and defaults for heights. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description clearly states it performs line-of-sight analysis between two points (observer and target) considering terrain elevation. The verb 'Determines' and specific resource 'line of sight' make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes from siblings like terrain_elevation (point elevation) and terrain_profile (elevation 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that for simple elevation queries one should use terrain_elevation, or for elevation profiles use terrain_profile. No context for when line-of-sight is appropriate.

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