get_map_shape_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description 'geofred/shapes/file' gives no insight into what the tool does behaviorally—whether it's a read operation, a download, a transformation, or something else. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, side effects, or output format, making it impossible for an agent to understand how to interact with it safely or effectively.

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 'geofred/shapes/file' is extremely brief but not effectively concise—it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks structure and fails to front-load key information, making it unhelpful despite its brevity. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't convey actionable meaning.

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 complexity (1 parameter with no schema descriptions, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. While the output schema might cover return values, the description doesn't address the tool's purpose, usage, parameters, or behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly in context with its siblings.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'shape' parameter. It doesn't explain what 'shape' means, what values it accepts, or how it relates to the tool's purpose. With low schema coverage and no compensatory details in the description, the agent has no semantic understanding of the parameter.

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 'geofred/shapes/file' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_map_shape_file' without providing meaningful context. It mentions 'geofred' and 'shapes/file' but doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., download, retrieve, generate) or what resource it operates on beyond the vague 'shape file'. This fails to distinguish it from siblings like 'get_map_regional_data' or 'get_map_series_data'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools (e.g., 'get_map_regional_data' or 'get_map_series_data'), leaving the agent with no information about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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