sample_elevations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers: it explicitly says 'Pure read — nothing is modified' and discloses return behavior (elevation meters per point, null for outside/nodata, bilinear interpolation from 2x2 neighborhood). It also explains coordinate mapping (WGS84 or UTM with zone) and configuration via EPANET_DEM_DIR, covering key behavioral aspects.

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 moderately long but each sentence carries weight: it covers purpose, behavior, workflow context, and configuration in a logical flow. It is not overly terse, but the content justifies the length and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential details: return value per point, null handling, interpolation, coordinate system alternatives, and its place in the workflow. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and interpret results.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the mutual exclusivity of points and networkId, the interpretation of the coordinates parameter (WGS84 vs UTM zone), and the default for the source parameter. It goes beyond the schema's bare field descriptions without repeating them.

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 verb ('sample'), the resource ('real ground elevations from the bundled IFSAR 10 m DEM'), and the subjects (WGS84 points or network nodes). It also distinguishes from siblings like set_node_elevation by noting it is the first step in the GIS workflow, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('the first call in the GIS workflow: sample, then build or set_node_elevation') and describes the two usage modes (explicit points vs network nodes), including coordinate handling. It also mentions the default elevation source for create_network, giving clear context for integration.

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