layer_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the substance of the result (fields, feature count, geometry, raster size), which is meaningful since there is no output schema, but it never states that the operation is a read-only lookup or what happens if the id/name is not found.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the identifier options, and the returned fields with no filler. The appended Georgian translation is redundant for the primary audience but costs little.

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?

For a low-complexity, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials, including the shape of the returned data. Only the read-only nature and error behavior are left unstated.

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% for the single 'layer' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add useful meaning by stating the parameter accepts either an id or a name, but gives no format expectations, case sensitivity, or failure behavior for unmatched values.

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?

States a specific resource and what is retrieved: details of one layer identified by id or name, including fields, feature count, geometry and raster size. The singular 'one layer' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_layers, though that distinction is not made explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_layers, project_info, or qgis_status. It does not state prerequisites (e.g. that a project/layer must be loaded) or when this tool is the wrong choice; the agent must infer usage entirely.

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