get_qgis_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get QGIS information' doesn't reveal any behavioral traits—it doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, how the information is formatted or returned, or any potential side effects. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise with just three words, but this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient communication. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is the purpose), it fails to provide necessary context, making it less helpful than a slightly longer but more informative description would be.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool in this context. It doesn't explain what 'QGIS information' entails, how it's returned, or why an agent would choose this over similar sibling tools. For a tool with no parameters but potential complexity in output or usage, more detail is needed to guide effective tool selection.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the absence of parameters means there's no parameter semantics to explain beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 'Get QGIS information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_qgis_info' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of QGIS information is retrieved (e.g., version, installed plugins, system status) or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_project_info' or 'get_layers' that also retrieve information from QGIS.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_project_info' and 'get_layers' that also retrieve QGIS-related information, there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or appropriate for specific contexts. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other tools are mentioned.

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