gugik_ortofoto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that archival mode returns candidate download links instead of adding a live layer, and explains the per-sheet package issue. It does not mention potential destructive actions or authentication needs, but the behavior is appropriately transparent for a non-destructive read/layer-add tool.

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 short paragraphs, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds unique value, no redundancy. The structure is clear: first sentence summarizes both modes, second paragraph details each mode with necessary caveats.

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?

Considering the tool's complexity (two modes, archival lookup with per-sheet packages) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the two use cases and provides a practical tip for cross-checking. However, it omits mention of the 'layer_name' parameter and does not hint at the output schema contents, which would be useful for an agent to fully understand expected returns.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the roles of 'lat', 'lon', and 'year' well, including conditionality. However, the 'layer_name' parameter is not mentioned at all, and the description does not clarify the behavior when only 'lat'/'lon' are provided without 'year' (possibly adds current orthophoto?). This omission reduces clarity for a complete set of parameters.

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 two distinct actions: adding current orthophoto as WMS or looking up archival coverage. It uses specific verbs and resource names ('Add GUGiK's current orthophoto as a WMS layer', 'look up archival coverage'), and the tool's purpose is easily distinguishable from its many siblings (e.g., wms_add_layer, gugik_nmt_wms) due to its specialized GUGiK orthophoto focus.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode: no 'year' for current WMS, 'year' plus 'lat'/'lon' for archival lookup. It also advises cross-checking 'year' against 'all_links' if the filtered list is empty. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives to this tool among siblings, though the tool occupies a unique niche.

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