get_layer_schema

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral detail (list of returned metadata) but does not disclose side effects, safety, or performance. It implies a read operation but does not state readOnly or destructive flags.

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 with two clear paragraphs: one for purpose and return values, one for parameters. No wasted sentences, though a structured list for returns might enhance readability.

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?

For a simple metadata tool with 2 params and an output schema present, the description covers the main purpose, return fields, and parameter explanations. It is largely complete but could mention read-only behavior.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage, the description explains both parameters: path (path to spatial file/directory) and layer (name, default first available). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it gets the complete schema of a spatial layer and lists return fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_layers or read_features, which would help an agent select correctly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_layers for layer listing, read_features for data). The usage context is implied but not stated.

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