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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it disclose any behavioral traits like potential errors or permissions. It meets the minimum but does not add extra context.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words; front-loaded with the action.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter), the description covers the basic purpose. However, the absence of an output schema means the agent cannot anticipate the return format. More detail on what 'information' includes would improve completeness.

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 only parameter is described in the schema). The tool description repeats the purpose but does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides about the 'layer' parameter's values and default.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'information about available CogitareLink layers and their URI mappings', which clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_ontology_info, list_all_files, etc.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools such as resolve_uri, discover_shapes, and get_shape_content, the agent would benefit from explicit context on when to prefer get_layer_info.

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