analyze_land_vehicle

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: component rows are paginated, 'forward' must be a horizontal unit vector with a documented inference fallback to +z, and axle span measures mounting origins rather than tyre-centre track. It also flags that suspension/steering sweep and mesh edits require in-game verification. It stops short of stating read-only versus mutating intent or auth/permission needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then sections, then the geometry caveats. Sentences are dense and technical but each earns its place. Slightly heavy on vector/geometry detail relative to the unexplained parameters.

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 formatting need not be described. However, for a 10-parameter, zero-coverage, annotation-free analysis tool, the description leaves several parameters unexplained and gives no sibling routing versus 'analyze_vehicle'. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does. It explains 'forward' semantics thoroughly, enumerates the 'section' values, and covers pagination (limit/offset) and multi-body separation (body_id). But 'design', 'source', 'wheel_roles' and 'exclude_wheel_ids' get no explanation beyond their names.

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?

States a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('a saved v3 vehicle or draft') and enumerates the analytical dimensions (body-local axles, wheelbase, mounts, light axes) plus output sections, so the agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'analyze_vehicle'.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the section list tells the agent what can be queried, and the closing note ('Suspension/steering sweep and mesh edits need game checks') implies a validation boundary. There is no explicit when-to-use versus 'analyze_vehicle' or 'land_vehicle_guide', and no stated prerequisites.

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