Kart: hvilke lag finnes i en WMS-tjeneste?

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

The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it reads GetCapabilities and lists layers, and it notes the source/license for the data. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does not disclose the return format, error handling, or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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 and front-loaded with the core function. Each sentence adds value: the action, the scope (Norwegian WMS), and the source/license. There is no waste or repetition.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers its main usage and inputs. With no output schema, it could be more explicit about the return format, but the essential information for selecting and invoking the tool is adequately addressed.

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 description explains the 'sok' parameter as 'valgfritt filtrert på tekst' (optional text filter), which is missing from the schema (coverage is 50%). The url parameter is already described in the schema, and the description adds example URLs, providing complementary meaning.

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 and lists the layers that can be queried, optionally filtered by text. This specific verb+resource (WMS layer listing) distinguishes it from map-related sibling tools like kart_punkt or kartverket_sted.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: against any Norwegian WMS service, with named examples like Geonorge, NVE, and others. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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