get_layer_features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It states only basic functionality and an optional limit, but it does not disclose what happens if the layer_id is invalid, whether features are returned in a specific format, or any side effects. The description is too sparse for full transparency.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, and the key information (action, resource, optional limit) is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and a 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more details about return values or error conditions. For a feature retrieval tool, the description is incomplete as it does not mention what the output looks like or how to handle failures. It barely meets the minimum for a simple tool.

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?

The input schema has two parameters with zero descriptions (0% coverage). The description only mentions 'with an optional limit', which adds no meaning beyond the schema's default value. It does not explain what 'layer_id' represents or how to specify it. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 action 'Retrieve features' and the resource 'from a vector layer'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_layers (which lists layers, not features) and add_vector_layer (which adds layers). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when features need to be retrieved, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other tools (e.g., get_layers vs. this). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given. However, the context of sibling tools makes its role somewhat clear.

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