crs_list_polish

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

The description accurately describes a read-only listing operation with no destructive behavior. No annotations are provided, but the description fully covers the behavioral traits.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing specific details and usage guidance. Every sentence is informative and necessary.

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 no parameters and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's functionality, listing specific CRS and connecting to sibling tools. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameters, so the description adds value by explaining the output and how to use it. This goes beyond the schema, which is empty.

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 lists coordinate reference systems commonly used for Polish data, specifying the exact systems and their EPSG codes, distinguishing it from other CRS tools.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use the returned EPSG codes with related tools like crs_transform_point and project_set_crs, providing clear post-usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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