get_cop_geometry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly mentions the underlying calls ('geometry'/'geometryAtFrame'), what is returned, what is not (full geometry), and the NO_UNDO guarantee. It also explains the effect of the optional 'frame' parameter, adding valuable context beyond the schema.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds information: the first defines the scope and outputs, the second explains the 'frame' option and non-serialization. No redundant phrasing exists.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide comprehensive context. It covers purpose, key outputs, and the frame variant, but lacks details about the other three parameters and does not explain return structure. Given moderate complexity (4 params), it is adequate but leaves clear 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'frame' parameter's behavior (triggers AtFrame variant), which is useful. However, it adds no meaning for 'ctx', 'node_path', or 'output_index', leaving their roles to be inferred from names alone. This is insufficient compensation for the low coverage.

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's function: reading a Copernicus output geometry summary, including counts, bbox, and attribute summary. It uses a specific verb ('读取') and identifies the resource ('Copernicus output geometry'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like get_geo_summary or get_geometry_data, so it falls short of a 5.

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 for lightweight summary access ('只返回', '不序列化完整几何') and explains the selective use of the AtFrame variant based on the 'frame' parameter. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, so it provides only implied guidance.

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