get_utm_zone

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, assumptions about coordinate order, or whether the operation is read-only. The agent relies solely on the word 'get' for safety.

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?

At 4 words, the description is extremely concise but may be too terse, omitting necessary details. It is front-loaded but sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 simplicity of the tool and existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on the output format and assumptions. An ideal description would clarify coordinate input requirements.

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 only parameter 'coordinates' lacks any description in the schema (0% coverage) and the description merely says 'given coordinates' without specifying required format, order (e.g., [lon, lat]), or coordinate system. This is a critical gap.

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 explicitly states the action 'get' and the resource 'UTM zone' for given coordinates. It is specific and differentiates from sibling 'get_utm_crs' which likely returns the CRS. However, it could clarify what a UTM zone is for non-experts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_utm_crs' or other geometry tools. The description does not provide any context for selection or exclusion criteria.

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