describe_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature implicitly by describing metadata retrieval, lists supported dataset types, and mentions that it can verify file existence. It does not explicitly state error behavior or side effects, but for a describe operation the behavior is well conveyed.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence definition of what it returns, a one-sentence usage recommendation, and a single parameter description. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema already present, the description covers purpose, usage timing, return contents, and parameter semantics. It lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or error conditions, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema only defines 'path' as a required string with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining that path is a 'Full path to the dataset' and enumerating supported formats: shapefile, raster, feature class, GDB, etc. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Describe a dataset', and enumerates exactly what is returned: coordinate system, geometry type, extent, and data type. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being path-based metadata inspection rather than layer manipulation, feature counting, or listing operations.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this to verify a file exists and check its projection before geoprocessing.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it.

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