slope

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing supported units, refusal of geographic CRS with a rationale about plausible but wrong values, provenance recording, and the whitebox dependency. These traits are not visible in the annotations or schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences contain only high-value caveats and dependencies. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 purpose, units, CRS restriction, provenance, and dependency, and an output schema exists for return details. The only notable gap is the unexplained z_factor parameter, which has a default and is likely optional for typical calls.

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 property descriptions, the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains units values/default and implies dem_path/output_path roles via the GeoTIFF in/out wording, but z_factor remains undefined, leaving one of four parameters semantically opaque.

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 states a specific operation (slope gradient from a DEM) with clear input/output format (GeoTIFF in, GeoTIFF out). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling terrain tools like hillshade or aspect.

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 gives clear usage context and crucial preconditions: geographic CRS DEMs are refused and must be reprojected, and the whitebox extra is required. It doesn't name alternative tools, but it provides enough guidance on when to invoke slope correctly.

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