gugik_download_nmt_tiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the algorithm (sampling, not true intersection), bounding box format, variant options, download behavior, and the max_samples cap. It does not mention authorization or rate limits, but for a download tool, the key behaviors are covered.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, followed by parameter details, algorithm note, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though a few technical details could be condensed slightly. Overall efficient and informative.

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 (sampling, multiple variants, optional download) and absence of annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the two output modes, parameter details, limitations, and practical tips. An output schema exists but isn't needed to understand the tool's behavior.

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 is 0%, so the description must fully explain all 4 parameters. It does so: bbox format (array of [xmin, ymin, xmax, ymax] in WGS84), variant values with defaults and examples, output_dir optionality, and max_samples with cap and usage tip. Each parameter is clearly defined 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 'Find (and optionally download) NMT/NMPT tile packages covering a bounding box,' with a specific verb (find/download), resource (tile packages), and scope (bounding box). It is distinct from sibling GUGiK tools that download other data types or WMS layers.

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 explains when to use the tool (for tile coverage over a bounding box) and includes important usage context like the sampling method, the need to raise max_samples for thin extents, and the optional download behavior. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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