get_green_spaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description holds the full burden. It discloses that it returns GeoJSON data, but does not mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, query performance, or handling of large datasets. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and result. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy.

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?

Missing output schema, but the description mentions GeoJSON format, compensating partially. It doesn't explain behavior of limit or output_path, though schema provides details. Overall adequate for a data retrieval tool with good schema coverage.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without further value.

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 it retrieves green spaces and park data in GeoJSON format within a specified rectangle. It lists included types (parks, forests, farmland, gardens) and is distinct from siblings like get_buildings or get_amenities.

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 specifies the context (rectangular area) and output format (GeoJSON), providing clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives, but the sibling tools are different categories so the use case is clear.

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