get_raster_crs

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that it opens the raster, reads the DatasetReader.crs attribute, and returns two representations. It doesn't cover error cases or performance, but is adequate for a simple read operation.

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 two sentences: first states purpose, second details implementation. No extraneous words, front-loaded with key information.

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 retrieval tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description explains the operation and return types. It doesn't discuss supported raster formats or file accessibility, but is sufficient.

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 path_or_url has no schema description, but the description clarifies acceptable values (local path or HTTPS URL). This adds meaningful context beyond the 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the CRS of a raster, with specific verb and resource, and mentions it returns both PROJ.4 dict and WKT. It is distinct from sibling CRS tools like get_crs_info which are not raster-specific.

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 indicates it operates on raster datasets from local paths or URLs, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. other CRS tools, such as for non-raster sources or when only a CRS name is needed.

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