wcps_query_crash_course

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full disclosure responsibility. It describes the return content (a crash course) and implies a read-only, safe operation, but does not explicitly mention lack of side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is adequate for a simple informational tool but could be more explicit.

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 only two sentences, with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 zero parameters and the existence of an output schema (which handles return format details), the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does and when to use it, complemented by sibling context. No gaps remain.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per instructions. The description does not need to add parameter information since there are none. No additional semantic value is required or missed.

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?

Description clearly states 'Returns a crash course on writing WCPS queries', using a specific verb and resource. This tool is distinct from siblings like execute_wcps_query or list_coverages, which involve direct database operations.

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 recommends checking this tool before executing queries, providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly name alternatives, though the sibling context implicitly fills this gap.

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