simulate_landscape_impact

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying data sources (PLATEAU 3D buildings, SunCalc) and the scope of analysis (surrounding buildings). This aligns with readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, providing context about the simulation nature without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, one in English and one in Japanese, with no unnecessary words. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simulation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could explain the return format, error cases, or limitations of the data sources. The high schema coverage and annotations mitigate some 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?

Schema description coverage is high (86%), so the description does not need to compensate heavily. The description mentions '3D buildings' and 'SunCalc' but does not add new parameter-level information beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 simulates sunlight/shadow impact using PLATEAU 3D buildings and SunCalc. It specifies the verb 'simulate' and the resource 'landscape impact', distinguishing it from sibling tools like simulate_aichi_future or simulate_leveraged_cashflow.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it's for sunlight/shadow analysis but does not mention when not to use it or compare to similar tools like assess_exterior_visuals.

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