Get Raster Info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no destructive effects. The description adds value by specifying the exact information retrieved, which is purely read-only. It does not contradict annotations and is transparent about 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's output. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it could be slightly improved by briefly explaining the parameter.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return structure. However, with low parameter coverage and no guidance on layer_id format, the description feels incomplete. For a simple tool, it is adequate but leaves 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?

The single parameter 'layer_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what 'layer_id' refers to (e.g., a raster layer ID or name), leaving ambiguity. The description should clarify the parameter's meaning to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get' and resource 'raster layer info', and explicitly lists the specific properties returned (band count, dimensions, CRS, extent, per-band statistics, nodata values). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_layer_extent' or 'get_field_statistics' that retrieve only partial information.

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 implies this tool is for obtaining comprehensive raster metadata, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools like 'get_layer_crs' or 'get_layer_extent'. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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