Get Raster Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds significant value by detailing the specific information returned (band count, dimensions, CRS, extent, statistics, nodata values). No contradictions.

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 short sentence (16 words) that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, output schema exists), the description provides sufficient context. It lists the return contents, and the output schema handles return format. No mention of prerequisites, but that is implied by the tool name.

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% (parameter 'layer_id' not mentioned in description). The description fails to explain the parameter, despite the tool being simple. It does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Get') and resource ('raster layer info') and lists the specific items returned (band count, dimensions, CRS, extent, statistics, nodata values). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_layer_crs or get_canvas_extent.

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 retrieving comprehensive raster layer information but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_layer_extent). No guidance on when-not-to-use or prerequisites is provided.

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