spatial_layer_admin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context—it says 'metadata, its fields and the tasks started for it' but does not detail what 'tasks started' means (e.g., includes only active tasks, or all?) or how the response is structured. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description provides some additional context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Admin view') and immediately lists the contained elements. No unnecessary detail.

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 tool that returns an 'admin view' encompassing metadata, fields, and tasks, the description is underspecified. There is no output schema, and the description does not indicate the structure or scope of the returned data (e.g., which metadata fields, whether tasks are filtered by status, pagination behavior). An agent would be uncertain about the exact output shape and could not reliably parse the response.

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 fully describes the only parameter ('id' as 'Layer id or upload id'), so coverage is 100%. The description does not add any further meaning about the parameter, such as format or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles it.

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 states a specific verb ('Admin view') and resource ('layer or upload'), and enumerates the contents (metadata, fields, tasks). It is clear that this combines several aspects, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like spatial_get_layer or spatial_list_tasks, so an agent may not know when this is preferred.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Admin view' implies a broader perspective, but it does not state conditions like 'use this for a full overview' or 'instead of calling get_layer separately.' An agent would have to infer the use case.

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