ows_list_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: automatic URL parameter handling, capping at 200 entries, best-effort XML parsing across dialects, and the type of data returned. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, dense with information without wasted words. Well-structured and efficient.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and presence of output schema, the description covers core functionality, parameter usage, return type, and limitations. It is adequate for the complexity of handling multiple OGC services.

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%, but the description explains 'url' as base endpoint with flexibility, 'service' with explicit service types, and mentions 'version' implicitly optional. Lacks detail on version parameter, but adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it reads GetCapabilities from WMS/WMTS/WFS/WCS endpoints, specifying the action and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like wms_add_layer by explaining that the returned data is used to pass to those tools.

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?

Provides good context on when to use (to discover service capabilities before adding layers), explains URL handling and service parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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