describe_layer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful substance by naming the fields returned, but says nothing about dump size, cost, or failure modes for an unknown id, and the unannotated mutation-adjacent parameter expectedRevision is left unexplained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and payload listed immediately; every word carries information and there is no preamble. It is terse to the point of leaving gaps, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With four parameters, three of them undocumented, no output schema, and no annotations covering idempotency or versioning, the description should explain expectedRevision behavior and whether a session is required. As written, an agent cannot tell whether omitting expectedRevision is safe.

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 only 25%: layerId is documented in the schema, while requestId, sessionId, and expectedRevision are bare. The description does not compensate at all, and expectedRevision in particular (likely optimistic-concurrency control) is a semantic trap an agent could misuse without explanation.

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?

"Detailed dump of one layer" states a specific resource and scope (single layer, detailed vs. list), and the parenthetical enumerates the data domains returned (transform, opacity, size, style, type-specific data). It does not name a sibling such as list_layers or get_scene_json, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 word "one layer" implies use when you need a single layer's detail rather than a full listing, so the choice against list_layers/get_scene_json is inferable but never stated. No prerequisites, no when-not guidance, and no mention of what happens with an invalid or missing layerId.

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