get_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 returned content, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, whether the layer must be in the active map, or behavior on missing layers. For a low-risk read tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 that enumerates the payload with zero filler. Every clause contributes, and the most important information (what detail is returned) comes first.

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 in prose, and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description covers the tool's scope adequately; the only gap is usage routing against siblings like get_layer_symbology, which is minor.

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 100%: the schema already documents map_name (defaults to active map) and layer_name (name as shown by get_layers or full dataset path). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Full detail for one layer') and enumerates exactly what detail is returned (data source, CRS, extent, fields, feature count, renderer, label state), which distinguishes it from the sibling get_layers (list) and the narrower get_layer_symbology/list_fields. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

'Full detail for one layer' implies the inspection use case after get_layers, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative (e.g., use get_layer_symbology for symbology only). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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