spatial_get_layer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'by id or name' lookup flexibility, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose behavior like whether it returns null/error if not found, or whether 'name' is an alternative parameter (the schema only has 'id'). With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the key information. It's concise and to the point. However, it's so brief that it misses important details (like the name parameter mismatch), so it's not a 5.

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 getter with readOnly annotations, the description is mostly adequate. But the 'by id or name' claim vs. schema-only-id is a real gap. There's no output schema, so the description should at least hint at what is returned (layer details). The tool is simple, but the mismatch between description and schema makes it incomplete.

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%, and the schema only defines 'id' as a string. The description says 'by id or name' but the schema only has 'id' – this is a mismatch. The description does not explain how to specify a name (no 'name' parameter in schema), nor does it clarify the format of id. This is a significant gap because the description promises functionality the schema doesn't support.

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 'One layer by id or name' clearly identifies the tool's function: retrieving a single layer using either an id or a name. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('layer'), and the phrase 'by id or name' distinguishes it from list_layers and other layer-related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it doesn't fully differentiate from tools like spatial_get_field or spatial_list_layers.

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 you need one layer identified by id or name. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. spatial_list_layers (for all layers) or spatial_get_field (for fields). The context is clear enough for a simple getter, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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