get_field_statistics

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 specific computed statistics (min, max, mean, etc.), which is the primary behavior. It does not mention side effects, but none are expected; the tool is clearly read-only. The description is transparent about what it returns.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is well front-loaded with the key statistics.

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?

Although the description is brief, the presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need to detail return values. The description covers the essential statistics and mentions both count and null count. However, it could be more complete by explicitly stating the field must be numeric and explaining the optional map_name parameter. Overall, it is adequate for a simple statistics tool.

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%, yet the description only adds meaning for the 'field' parameter (implying it must be numeric). The 'layer_name' and 'map_name' parameters are not described at all, leaving their roles unclear. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'min/max/mean/sum/std of a numeric field (plus count and null count)'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'calculate_field' (which modifies) and 'get_unique_values' (which returns distinct values), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for numeric fields but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like 'get_features' or 'get_layer_info'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, though the context is clear from the name and description.

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