generate_grid_survey

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool automatically saves the mission and returns the saved mission with ID and waypoint count. This is transparent about the persistence side-effect. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or potential overwrites.

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?

Three sentences, no redundancy. Content is front-loaded: first sentence states the core action, second explains the calculation and saving behavior, third gives a practical tip. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (10 params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, indicates the return value, and hints at prerequisites. It could mention parameter dependencies or constraints (e.g., polygon area restrictions) but is largely sufficient.

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?

The input schema covers all 10 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by hinting that camera_model values come from list_cameras, but overall it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 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 grid/mapping survey mission from a polygon area, specifying the lawnmower pattern. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_corridor_mission or generate_orbit_mission through the specific grid/mapping terminology.

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 advises calling list_cameras first for camera_model values, which is a helpful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context of 'grid survey' implies use for area mapping, but alternatives are not ruled out.

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