generate_corridor_mission

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

The description notes that the mission is 'automatically saved to your account,' a behavioral detail not conveyed by annotations (which are absent). This is helpful but does not cover other traits like idempotency or potential side effects on existing missions.

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, each providing distinct value: purpose, mechanism, and prerequisite guidance. No wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, none with enums) and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite. However, it omits details on return value (e.g., mission ID) and behavior confirmation, which would be helpful for a creating tool.

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 90%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context for camera_model (referencing list_cameras) but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool generates a linear corridor mapping mission along paths like roads, pipelines, and power lines. It specifies how it works (parallel passes with camera-based spacing) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_grid_survey or generate_orbit_mission, which are for different mission types.

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 recommends calling list_cameras first to see available camera_model values, which is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for non-linear or non-corridor missions.

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