spatial_list_fields

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 covered. The description adds useful context about what 'fields' means in this system, but it does not disclose filter behavior, limit semantics, or return format.

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 text is brief and has little filler, but the compressed 'cl… contextual, el… environmental' notation is cryptic and the overall fragment lacks clear sentence structure. It is short, not genuinely well-communicated.

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?

With no output schema and a description this sparse, an agent lacks information about return values, q filter semantics, and limit behavior. Safe no-argument calls may be possible, but filtered or detailed usage requires guessing beyond what is provided.

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?

There are two parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'optionally filtered' vaguely maps to q, but the description does not explain how to use q or what limit does, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource ('Fields') and hints at a filtering option, while adding the domain distinction of sampling/intersect layer views with contextual/environmental prefixes. However, it lacks an explicit verb or full command sentence, so the actual 'list' operation must be inferred from the tool name.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool over siblings like spatial_get_field or spatial_list_layers. The only implicit usage cue is that fields are a special view of layers and can be filtered, with no exclusions or decision conditions.

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