inspect_layer_zip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying exactly what checks are performed (files present, WGS84, DBF encoding) and the output (list of DBF columns with sample values). No contradiction with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes specific details about checks and output. There is no extraneous information, and every word adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it checks and what it returns. It does not describe error conditions or return format in detail, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% for the 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate. It implies that 'path' refers to a local layer zip file, but does not explicitly state the expected format, file extension, or that it must be a zip file. This provides some context, but not enough to fully resolve ambiguity without additional inference.

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's verb ('Check') and resource ('local layer zip'), and specifies what it checks (files present, WGS84, DBF encoding) and what it returns (DBF columns with sample values). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spatial_upload or spatial_verify_layer, which serve different purposes.

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 phrase 'before uploading' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is sufficient for an agent to understand it's a pre-upload validation step, but lacks explicit exclusions or references to related tools.

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