hillshade

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing output value scaling (0-32767), the meaning and defaults of azimuth and altitude, rejection of DEMs without a CRS, and the dependency on the [whitebox] extra. This gives the agent a clear picture of what the operation does and how it behaves.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core transformation, and includes only essential behavior, parameters, and constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 description covers the input/output format, value scaling, key parameter defaults, a validation constraint, and a runtime dependency. It is nearly complete, but omits any explanation of z_factor and does not state whether existing output files are overwritten; these are minor given the output schema and annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for azimuth and altitude by explaining their units, defaults, and interpretation, and implies that dem_path/output_path are GeoTIFF inputs/outputs. However, z_factor is not described at all, leaving a meaningful parameter semantically unexplained.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: generating shaded relief from a DEM, with a specific GeoTIFF-to-GeoTIFF transformation. This is distinct from sibling terrain tools like slope, aspect, and flow_accumulation because it names the output product ('shaded relief') and the processing model ('GeoTIFF in, GeoTIFF out').

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 gives useful usage conditions: DEMs must have a CRS, and the [whitebox] extra is required. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose hillshade over alternative terrain-analysis siblings (e.g., slope or aspect), so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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