gugik_kiub

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states that the tool adds a layer and lists layer options, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting, loading times), authentication requirements, or error conditions. The agent lacks understanding of the tool's broader impact.

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 remarkably concise, using a single sentence to convey the core purpose and a follow-up to detail parameter choices. Every phrase adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action. No redundancy.

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?

The description covers the layer parameter comprehensively but omits details about the output schema, return value, and the 'layer_name' parameter. Given the tool's complexity (multiple layer subtypes), the description is somewhat incomplete for full autonomous use. It provides a basic understanding but lacks completeness.

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% coverage, so the description is critical. It provides detailed semantics for the 'layer' parameter, listing all allowed values and explaining their geographic meaning (coverage-index layers vs. actual utility lines). However, the 'layer_name' parameter is not explained, leaving ambiguity.

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's purpose: 'Add a Krajowa Integracja Uzbrojenia Terenu (KIUT/GESUT) utility-network layer.' The verb 'Add' specifies the action, and the resource is a specific layer type. The description also enumerates the valid layer values, distinguishing it from sibling tools that add different data layers (e.g., gugik_ortofoto).

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 does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate. The agent receives no context about decision-making.

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