get_raster_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves details but does not disclose read-only nature, prerequisites, error behavior, or any side effects. The behavior is implied but not transparent.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the core action and lists specific details efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 description covers the tool's return value (raster details) adequately given the presence of an output schema. However, it lacks context about parameter roles, scope (only raster layers), and limitations. It is minimally complete but not thorough.

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%, yet the description does not mention or explain any parameters (map_name, layer_name). It adds no semantic meaning beyond what parameter names imply, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'raster layer details', listing concrete attributes (bands, size, cell size, pixel type, statistics). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_layer_info, which may return general layer info.

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 obtaining raster metadata but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. It does not differentiate from siblings like get_layer_info or get_features.

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