get_legend

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

The description reveals a key behavioral trait: the return format depends on the source type (structured entries for ArcGIS, image for WMS). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does provide some behavioral context beyond the name and schema. However, it does not disclose other relevant behaviors such as error handling, permissions, or how layer_id affects the output.

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 11-word sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core concept and immediately specifies the key format difference. Every word contributes meaning.

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 no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin for an agent to reliably invoke the tool. It does not explain the meaning of 'source' or 'layer_id', nor does it clarify when to use this tool relative to siblings like describe_layer or export_map. The presence of an output schema is helpful, but the description alone leaves important gaps.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for either 'source' or 'layer_id'. The ArcGIS/WMS distinction hints at source behavior, but it does not explain what values are expected or how layer_id influences the result. The tool fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 that the tool returns the legend of a source and distinguishes between structured entries for ArcGIS and an image for WMS. This communicates the core resource and output type, and the ArcGIS/WMS distinction helps separate it from sibling tools like describe_layer or query_layer. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', relying on the tool name to carry the action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as describe_layer or query_layer. The description gives no context about when a legend is needed, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools or conditions that would make another tool more appropriate. An agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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