spatial_list_layers

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 the filtering criteria (name, display name, classification), which clarifies query semantics, but it does not disclose pagination behavior (limit default 50) or return structure. With annotations carrying the main behavioral burden, this is modest added context but not a rich disclosure.

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 extremely concise, using a single short phrase with no filler words. It front-loads the resource name and the filter condition, which helps scanning. It is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly hurts structural clarity but does not add unnecessary length.

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 list tool with no output schema, no parameter descriptions in the schema, and no explicit return statement, this description is incomplete. It does not explicitly state that the tool returns a list of layers, does not mention the limit parameter or its default, and offers no information about output format or behavior. The annotations cover safety, but the operational context an agent needs to call it correctly is largely 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?

The description gives meaningful semantics to the 'q' parameter by specifying that it filters on text across name, display name, and classification. However, the 'limit' parameter is entirely unexplained in both the description and the schema (schema coverage is 0%), and the description does not mention the default value or its purpose. This partial compensation for the schema gap warrants a middle score.

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 (layers) and the optional filter by text on name, display name, and classification. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'returns', but the tool name and the noun phrase make the action clear. It differentiates from sibling list tools (spatial_list_fields, spatial_list_objects) by naming the resource type.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spatial_get_layer (for a single layer) or other list tools. It only states the optional filter condition and does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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