get_features

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

The description indicates it's a read operation ('Read') and warns that include_geometry can produce large WKT data. With no annotations, it partially covers behavioral traits but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or state changes beyond the read nature.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value; no fluff or redundant 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 the tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main functionality but omits context for limit (default and behavior) and map_name. It adequately avoids duplicating output schema information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for where (optional SQL clause), fields (optional field list), and include_geometry (adds WKT). However, it does not explain limit, map_name, or layer_name, thus compensating only partially.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'features from a layer as attribute rows'. It specifies optional SQL where clause and field list, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like select_features or get_layers.

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 implies usage for reading features with optional filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., select_features, get_layers). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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