metadata_raster

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

The description discloses read-only behavior and the supported input types (local path and HTTPS URL). While no annotations are provided, the description adequately communicates the tool's non-destructive nature. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values.

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 concise with only a few sentences, front-loading the key purpose and then clarifying input modes. No unnecessary information, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential context: read-only mode, supported inputs, and the purpose. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it omits error handling or file format constraints.

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 for 'path_or_url' is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that it is a file path or HTTPS URL, with examples. This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the bare 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 opens a raster dataset in read-only mode and returns metadata. It specifies two modes (local file path and HTTPS URL) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_raster_crs or raster_band_statistics by being a general metadata retrieval tool.

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 provides context for when to use the tool (to get metadata from a raster), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or advise against misuse. No mention of when to use this over more specific metadata tools such as get_raster_crs or raster_histogram.

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