Estils, capes i terrenys disponibles a l'ICGC

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: it queries live configuration and falls back to a local backup if the network fails. It still omits auth/permission needs, rate limits, and the exact shape or size of the returned configuration.

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 definition is a single dense sentence that front-loads the live-query behavior and then lists the returned resource categories. There is no filler, and the parenthetical fallback note 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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description names the returned categories and the network-fallback behavior. It does not describe the structure of the returned configuration in detail, but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly focuses on the returned resources instead.

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 states a specific verb ('Consulta en viu ... i retorna') and enumerates the resources returned: base map styles, 3D terrains, and layer groups. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the documentation-oriented sibling tools.

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?

Usage is implied by 'disponibles per usar amb mapicgc-gl-js' and the live/fallback behavior, suggesting this is for retrieving current ICGC configuration. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as get_api or search_docs, and no exclusions.

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