wp_analyze_terrain

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important safety trait 'Read-only,' which is real value, but it says nothing about cost, runtime, permissions, or what the optional coast-coverage pass actually does.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covering outputs plus a two-word safety tag — no filler. It is terse rather than padded, though 'Read-only.' as a fragment is slightly abrupt and could be folded in.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a three-parameter analysis tool with zero annotation coverage, the description omits parameter meaning, usage conditions, and any behavioral detail an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 0% for three parameters, and the description does not compensate. 'dimension', 'sea_level', and 'world_path' are never explained; 'sea_level' is only obliquely implied by the mention of coast coverage, leaving formats and valid values undocumented.

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 names a specific verb+resource (compute elevation and slope statistics) and enumerates the concrete outputs: coast coverage and a heightmap preview. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like wp_export_heightmap or wp_get_world_info, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The word 'optional' hints that coast coverage is conditional but never says under what condition, and nothing routes the agent between this and the analysis/export siblings.

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