uldk_get_region

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 the side effect of adding a layer to the project and mentions that only a summary is returned. However, it does not discuss permissions, reversibility, or other potential consequences.

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 three sentences with the action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. It efficiently covers the core functionality and relationship to other tools.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description omits details for two optional parameters (`layer_name`, `target_layer_id`) and does not fully cover the scope of the tool's behavior. It is functional but incomplete for complex use cases.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description explains `level` (listing the three values) and implicitly describes `teryt_code` by referencing `teryt_lookup`. It does not explain `layer_name` or `target_layer_id`, leaving significant gaps.

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 fetches a boundary (obreb/gmina/powiat) and adds it as a layer. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `teryt_to_geometry` by noting it only returns a summary, making its specific role clear.

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 context on when to use (fetching boundaries) and mentions the companion tool `teryt_to_geometry` for full geometry. It also notes that codes from `teryt_lookup` work, guiding the agent toward proper usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use.

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