generate_corridor_mission

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the auto-save behavior, which is a key side effect. However, it lacks details on permissions, naming conflicts, or other behavioral traits, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds a behavioral note and a crucial prerequisite, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given no output schema and 10 parameters, the description explains the mission type and auto-save but omits details about return values, parameter interactions (e.g., corridor_width vs num_passes), and error states. Adequate but incomplete.

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 high (90%), so the description's additional value is limited. It mentions camera-based spacing and the prerequisite for camera_model, but does not significantly augment the schema descriptions of other parameters.

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 it generates a linear corridor mapping mission along a path, specifying use cases like roads, pipelines, power lines. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_grid_survey by focusing on linear corridors and parallel passes.

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 explicitly advises calling list_cameras first to see available camera_model values, providing a clear prerequisite. While it doesn't exclude other scenarios, the context of sibling tools implies appropriate use.

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