gugik_kieg_wms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It discloses that the tool adds a live WMS layer, lists CRS options, and describes the data source. However, it omits details like network requirements, performance implications, or whether the layer is raster/vector.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second provides technical details (layer options, CRS). No redundancy, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and technical specifics. Minor gaps like network requirements or performance notes do not significantly hinder understanding for a standard add-layer operation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning for the 'layer' parameter by listing possible values. The 'layer_name' parameter is not explained, leaving a gap. The description partially compensates but could be more thorough.

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 adds a KIEG/EGiB cadastral layer, listing specific layer types (e.g., budynki, dzialki). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wms_add_layer by specifying the unique data source and nationwide scope.

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 implies usage for adding Polish cadastral data but lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or direct comparisons to alternative tools. However, the specificity of the name and provided detail make the context clear enough for an agent.

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