get_broken_layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating scan and the phrase 'across all maps' usefully discloses that the search is global, but it says nothing about cost, whether sources are checked on disk versus network, or how results are ordered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope ('across all maps') and the filter ('whose data source is missing') stated immediately. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a zero-parameter read tool this covers what an agent needs, though a pointer to repair_layer_source as the natural follow-up would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the (empty) argument set.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('layers') with a precise filter: 'whose data source is missing', scoped 'across all maps'. This clearly separates it from the sibling get_layers, which lists all layers without a health filter.

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 condition that motivates use (missing data sources) is implied by the description, and it pairs naturally with repair_layer_source, but the description never states when to call this versus get_layers, diagnose, or repair_layer_source, nor any prerequisites.

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