import_geotiff_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key side-effect profile ('without attaching it to the session') and lists return fields, but it omits error behavior, file access constraints, and permission requirements for an unannotated tool.

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 tightly written sentences. The return fields are front-loaded and the alternative-tool routing sentence follows without any wasted words.

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 simple read-only metadata tool, the description covers purpose, return contents, and the alternative attach behavior. The missing path semantics and error/edge-case behavior keep it from being fully complete, but the core needs for correct invocation are largely covered.

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 0% and the sole 'path' parameter has no schema description. The description implies a GeoTIFF file path but adds no format, relative/absolute path, or validation detail beyond what the schema minimally names.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('GeoTIFF file'), and enumerates the returned metadata fields. It also distinguishes itself from attach_raster_layer by noting it does not attach the file to the session.

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?

Explicitly names attach_raster_layer as the alternative and states the condition for choosing it: 'to keep it as a session basemap.' The decision rule between importing metadata and attaching a raster layer is clear.

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