gugik_nmt_wms

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is view-only (read-only), specifies the resolution (1x1 m), projection (EPSG:3857), and that it's a WMS layer. It does not mention side effects like adding a layer to the project, but that is implied. It could mention authentication or rate limits, but these are not critical for this tool. Overall, transparent enough.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides essential context about the tool's limitations. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter), the description covers the main behavior. The existence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values. However, it could mention that the layer is added to the current project and how the `layer_name` parameter affects the layer name. Still, it is sufficiently complete for an experienced user.

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 only parameter `layer_name` has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not explain its purpose or expected values. Without any guidance on the parameter, the agent cannot reliably set it. The description should have clarified whether it's a custom name or a specific layer identifier.

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?

Clearly states the tool adds a GUGiK digital terrain model shaded-relief WMS layer. The verb 'Add' with the specific resource (Numeryczny Model Terenu WMS) makes the action unambiguous. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool `gugik_download_nmt_tiles` by noting this is for visualization only, not for numeric elevation values.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use this tool (for WMS visualization) and when not to (for actual elevation values or tiles), directing to the alternative `gugik_download_nmt_tiles`. It also provides context on why only WMS is available (no stable WCS endpoint), aiding the agent in making informed decisions.

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