aspect_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the license requirement and that it writes a new raster, which adds value. However, it does not detail side effects, performance, or what happens with existing outputs beyond what the schema's overwrite parameter implies.

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 concise with four sentences, starting with the core action. It lists use cases efficiently. Minor room for improvement in structuring but overall well-sized.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, dependencies (license), and use cases. It could mention output format (e.g., integer raster in degrees), but the output schema likely handles that. Completeness is good.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (in_raster, out_raster, z_factor, overwrite), achieving high schema coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-specific information, so the baseline score 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 derives downslope aspect direction from an elevation raster using ArcPy Spatial Analyst Aspect. It lists specific use cases (terrain interpretation, solar exposure, ecological modeling, hydrology, site suitability), distinguishing it from siblings like slope_analysis.

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 provides explicit usage contexts (terrain interpretation, solar exposure, etc.) but does not mention when not to use or compare to alternatives. While helpful, it lacks explicit exclusions.

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