build_terrain

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

The description discloses the CLI usage, rendering behavior, automatic placement of -v argument, and typical build times, but lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., file modifications), error conditions, or prerequisites like Gaea installation.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no superfluous information; each sentence contributes essential context.

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 8 parameters and a potentially time-consuming process with no output schema, the description lacks information on output location, success indicators, blocking behavior, error handling, and prerequisites, leaving significant gaps.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds only a minor note about the -v argument being placed last, providing no further parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses the verb 'build' with the resource 'terrain' and specifies it uses a CLI to render all output nodes, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_terrain or read_terrain_graph.

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 implies usage after terrain creation (since build is distinct from create), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.

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