Get Layer CRS

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned (EPSG code, description, geographic, PROJ4), which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output fields.

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, the description's list of returned fields is sufficient. The tool is simple, and the description covers what the agent needs to know about the return value and purpose.

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% (low), so the description should compensate by explaining the parameter 'layer_id'. However, the description does not mention this parameter or its meaning. Though the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to add any semantic value.

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 the verb 'get' and the resource 'coordinate reference system (CRS) of a layer', listing specific attributes returned (EPSG code, description, geographic flag, PROJ4 string). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_layer_crs or get_layer_extent.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like set_layer_crs or get_layer_extent. Usage is implied, but no exclusions or references to other tools are given.

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