Transform Coordinates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description need not reinforce safety. Description adds context on input formats and that output matches input format, but doesn't disclose potential errors (e.g., unsupported CRS) or that it doesn't modify any state.

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?

Two sentences: first states action, second lists input/output formats. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place. Ideal conciseness.

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 output schema exists (though not shown), description need not detail return values. It mentions 'Returns the same format', which is sufficient. Covers input formats and output guarantee. Could add CRS format expectations but not critical for agent invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description carries full burden. It explains that point, points, and bbox accept specific structures ({x, y}, list, bbox format), which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'object' with additionalProperties.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Transform' and the resource 'coordinates between CRS'. It lists acceptable input formats (point, point list, bbox) and output format. This distinguishes it from sibling CRS-related tools like get_layer_crs or set_layer_crs which operate on layer CRS settings.

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?

Description does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_layer_crs or set_project_crs. No explicit context on typical use cases or exclusions. Only states what it accepts, not guidance on selection.

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