gugik_osnowa

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that omitting output_dir returns only a URL, while providing it downloads the file. Archival mode returns download links. This covers the main behavioral traits, though it does not explicitly state read-only nature or error conditions. Still, it is sufficiently transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses backticks for mode values and clear structure. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, multiple parameters, output schema exists), the description covers essential behavior: modes, parameter usage, and output variants. It references a sibling mechanism. It does not detail error handling or return format, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need. Overall, it is reasonably complete.

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 explain parameters. It does: lat/lon are needed for archival mode, mode options are explained, output_dir controls download vs URL. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema itself, though it could more explicitly state defaults and constraints.

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 accesses geodetic control-point data, distinguishes two modes (current points and archival cards), and specifies what each mode returns. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like gugik_skorowidze, achieving a high purpose clarity.

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 each mode: default for current data, archival mode for scanned cards with lat/lon coordinates. It references the similar skorowidz mechanism, aiding understanding. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives beyond mentioning the sibling tool, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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