get_terrain_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the tool delegates to get_terrain_grid internally and that results are aggregated shares/candidates/rows rather than raw data. It does not characterize cost, response size (include_ascii could return a large character map), or latency implications, which are the behavioral traits an agent would most need here.

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 densely packed sentences with no filler: the payload enumeration comes first and the internal-dependency note second. Every clause conveys information an agent can use for selection.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does by listing the aggregate categories returned. For a two-optional-parameter read-only report tool this is nearly sufficient; only the size/format of the ASCII map output remains unstated.

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 100%, with both 'step' (default 75, bounds 10-300) and 'include_ascii' (default false) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how step granularity affects the reported shares or corridor rows, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete analysis resource and enumerates exactly what it returns: water/road/wall/building shares, bridge candidates with coordinates, elevation range, and clearest corridor rows. The closing note that it 'uses get_terrain_grid internally' positions it clearly relative to the closest sibling, so an agent can distinguish the summary tool from the raw-grid tool without inspecting either schema.

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?

'One-call terrain analysis' implies this should be preferred over assembling terrain facts from multiple calls, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_terrain_grid, nor any exclusion or prerequisite, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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