geofred_shapes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the data size issue for county-level shapes and specifies the return format (GeoJSON FeatureCollection). While it could mention rate limits or authorization, the given details are sufficient for safe usage.

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 exceptionally concise with three sentences plus arg/returns, front-loading the purpose and critical warning. No fluff or redundant information, every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 required param with enum, output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter meaning, performance warning, and return type. No gaps in understanding for an AI agent.

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 explains the shape parameter as 'Region type for shape boundaries', adding context beyond the enum values. Though not detailing each enum, the names are self-explanatory and the description provides minimal but adequate clarification, meeting the baseline for 0 params.

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 clearly states 'Get GeoJSON shape files for geographic region boundaries', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on shape files for boundaries, which is unique among the fred and geofred 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance by warning that county-level shapes can be very large and advising to prefer state or broader region types when possible. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or specify when not to use this tool, leaving room for improvement.

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