superset_annotation_layer_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying that this is a safe, read-only operation. The verb 'Get' implies non-mutating behavior, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or mention potential error outcomes (e.g., 404 if ID not found). It adds the useful context that the ID must be obtained from a list operation, but no deeper behavioral disclosures.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a crucial usage note and a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff 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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, how to obtain the ID, and the prerequisite list call. It does not explain return values, but the output schema covers that. It could have mentioned that this returns layer metadata only (not the annotations within the layer), but the tool name and sibling context make that reasonably clear.

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 compensates by explaining the parameter's meaning and source: 'Layer ID (from annotation_layer_list).' This tells the agent where to obtain a valid value, adding context beyond the schema's bare 'integer' type. It does not elaborate on format constraints, but the schema already provides type info.

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 tool fetches annotation layer information by ID, using the specific verb 'Get' and naming the resource. It distinguishes this from the sibling tool annotation_layer_list, which retrieves layers without an ID, by explicitly framing it as a lookup by ID.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'if the ID is unknown, call annotation_layer_list first.' This not only tells the agent when to use this tool (when ID is known) but also names a specific alternative and precondition. The Args section reiterates that the ID comes from annotation_layer_list.

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