read_features

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses that it returns a GeoJSON FeatureCollection, supports filters (where, bbox), defaults limit to 10, and provides error handling when output size is exceeded. It is read-only in nature and non-destructive, which is inferred but not stated explicitly.

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: a single sentence for purpose, followed by a parameter list with brief explanations, and a final sentence on error behavior. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 output schema exists and the description covers return type (GeoJSON FeatureCollection), all parameters, and error handling, the description is complete for the tool's complexity. No additional information is needed.

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%, but the description explains each parameter comprehensively: path, layer, limit, where (with SQL example), and bbox (with spatial filter format). 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 reads features from a layer and returns them as GeoJSON FeatureCollection. The verb 'Lee' (reads) and resource 'capa' (layer) are specific, and it is clearly distinct from siblings like get_layer_schema or list_layers.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., get_layer_schema for schema, render_map for visualization). The description implies usage for reading feature data but does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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