getLayerSchema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying what is inspected (fields, counts, metadata) and the return structure, but it does not disclose edge cases or side effects beyond that. It complements annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentence plus a return type line, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds meaning, with no fluff or repetition of component names. It is well-structured for quick scanning by an agent.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and a generic output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return format. The output schema exists, so detailed field explanation is not needed. It misses potential error cases or notes on layer existence, but annotations and parameter docs cover safety and IDs sufficiently. Only a minor gap remains regarding what happens when a layer is invalid.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The layerId description ('Layer ID (get via listLayers)') adds useful context for obtaining the ID, and sessionId explains its routing purpose. The tool description itself adds no further parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for full coverage.

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 ('Inspect') and the resource ('fields, entity counts, and metadata for a layer'). It is specific enough to distinguish it from generic listing tools like listLayers or entity queries, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 indirectly implies usage (when you need layer schema details) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools are better alternatives. The readOnlyHint and sibling names give context, but the description itself lacks direct usage direction.

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