get_map_layers

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

With no annotations, the description itself must convey behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that this has no side effects or describe other behavioral nuances such as error handling or empty-map behavior. It is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The purpose is stated in the first sentence, and the parameter explanation is minimal but complete.

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 one-parameter list operation with an output schema available, the description is largely complete. It could be improved by explicitly noting that this is read-only and where it fits relative to sibling tools, but no critical calling information is missing.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It defines map_id as 'the ID of the map whose layers to list,' adding meaningful relational context beyond the bare schema field name 'Map Id.' This is sufficient for the tool's single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all layers on a specific Felt map.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_maps and get_map_details by naming the exact object being retrieved.

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 the tool is for retrieving layers for a particular map, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as get_map_details or list_maps. The intended use is understandable but not made fully explicit.

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