list_rasters

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

With no annotations, the description must communicate behavior. It adds useful detail about workspace fallback ('Uses current workspace if empty') and filter semantics, but it doesn't disclose whether subfolders are searched, whether the operation is strictly read-only, or any permissions needed. This is adequate but not complete.

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 clear sentence followed by a compact parameter list. Every line has a purpose; no filler, no repetition of the schema beyond necessary semantics.

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 optional-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the core invocation details and the available filters. It is slightly incomplete regarding recursive search behavior and explicit guidance on when a raster_type value is necessary, but nothing an agent needs to make a basic call is missing.

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 carries full parameter documentation. It explains all three parameters: workspace path with empty-value behavior, pattern as a wildcard filter, and raster_type with concrete examples (TIF, IMG, GRID) and default-all meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List raster datasets in a workspace.' This unambiguously identifies what the tool does and clearly differentiates it from sibling listing tools such as list_feature_classes and list_tables.

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 purpose itself implies when to use it—when raster datasets in a workspace are needed—and the parameters clarify scope, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling to prefer (e.g., list_feature_classes for vector data). Usage context is present only by implication.

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