describe_mxd

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool returns document properties and per-data-frame coordinate system/extent, which implies a read-only inspection. It does not enumerate failure modes or file-access requirements, but for a read-oriented describe tool the disclosure is reasonably complete.

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 entire description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action ('Return MXD document properties') and then adds the key details about data frame coordinate systems and extents. 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 tool has one obvious parameter, an output schema to cover return details, and a clear read-only purpose. The description omits guidance about invalid paths or prerequisites, but for a simple describe operation it is largely complete. A slightly richer statement about file access or non-mutation would make it a 5.

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 adds context that mxd_path refers to an MXD document whose properties will be read. The parameter name and title are already self-explanatory, and with only one parameter this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and names a precise resource: 'MXD document properties plus each data frame's coordinate system and extent.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_mxd_layers (layers only) and describe_dataset (datasets).

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 function's purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it: when MXD-level document properties, data frame coordinate systems, or extents are needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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