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 behavioral burden. It states what properties are returned but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, whether it can be slow for large rasters, or how it handles missing statistics. For a read tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists key return fields without extraneous text. It is appropriately sized but could benefit from slightly more structure to separate purpose from output details.

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?

With no annotations and a rich output schema (which the description needn't explain), the description still lacks important context: it does not clarify that this tool is specifically for raster layers, does not mention any prerequisites, and does not describe error behavior. For a tool in a large toolset with many get_* siblings, more completeness is expected.

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%, so both parameters (map_name and layer_name) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 provides a specific verb (get) and resource (raster info) and enumerates the returned fields: bands, size, cell size, pixel type, statistics, CRS. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_layer_info (generic layer info) and preview_layout, though it does not explicitly state the scope limitation (raster-only) or directly contrast with those siblings.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The tool's purpose is implied by its name and the listed raster properties, but there is no mention of alternatives for non-raster layers or when this should be preferred over get_layer_info. Usage 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.