octane_visualize_geojson

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: accepted GeoJSON formats, extrusion behavior, requirement of shapely, and graceful failure with install hint. It does not cover edge cases like invalid GeoJSON or performance, but provides substantial transparency.

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 two paragraphs: first explaining functionality, second detailing return value. It is front-loaded and clear, though could omit redundant phrasing.

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 4 parameters and no annotations, the description covers input format, output (asset path, commands, bridge status), and a key prerequisite. However, missing descriptions for 'color' and 'z_extrude' parameters leave gaps for full usage.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description only explains the 'geojson' parameter indirectly. Parameters like 'name', 'color', and 'z_extrude' (default 0.5) are not described at all, leaving their purpose unclear.

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 visualizes GeoJSON or shapely geometry as extruded geometry in Octane, with specific mapping rules (points to marker boxes, lines/polygons to extruded walls). It distinguishes from siblings like octane_visualize_bars by focusing on GeoJSON input.

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 when GeoJSON or shapely geometry needs 3D visualization, and notes the prerequisite of the 'geo' extra. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

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