add_raster_layer

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. It only states the action and the parameter; it does not mention failure modes, behavior when no active map exists, whether an existing layer with the same name is replaced, or any side effects.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. The Args section is minimal but useful and directly tied to the only 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?

For a single-parameter tool, the description covers the essential invocation details and correctly targets the active map. However, it omits edge-case context such as what happens if no active map exists, whether the file must already be accessible locally, and how errors are reported.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides meaningful parameter guidance: 'path' is a full path to the raster file, with an explicit Windows-style example. This compensates for the bare schema definition.

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', the resource 'raster layer', and the target context 'active map'. It also mentions accepted formats (GeoTIFF, IMG), and the sibling add_vector_layer makes the raster-vs-vector distinction obvious.

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 clearly communicates that this tool is for adding raster layers to the active map, which gives useful context for selection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling names make the intended scope reasonably clear.

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