add_raster_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add a raster layer') but lacks critical details: whether this is a mutation (likely yes, but not confirmed), what permissions are needed, if it modifies the project state, error handling, or response format. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'adding a raster layer' entails operationally, how parameters interact, what happens on success/failure, or return values. For a tool that likely alters project state, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'raster layer' and 'project', hinting at the 'path' parameter for the raster file, but doesn't explain 'provider' (default 'gdal') or 'name' (default null). No additional meaning or usage context is provided beyond the schema's basic titles, leaving key parameters unclear.

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 the verb ('Add') and resource ('raster layer to the project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_vector_layer' by specifying 'raster' instead of 'vector', though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is not vague or tautological, but lacks explicit sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open project), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'add_vector_layer' for vector data or 'load_project' for project setup. Usage is implied by the action, but no explicit context or alternatives are provided.

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