spatial_verify_layer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so there is no safety contradiction. The description contributes the fact that verification spans multiple systems and UI surfaces, but it does not say what happens on inconsistency, how results are returned, or whether external services like GeoServer WMS are queried live.

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 short, but 'Wiki step 8' is cryptic noise that does not help an agent, and the long list of endpoints is packed into one clause without explaining their roles. It is concise but not structured in a way that highlights the essential meaning.

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 no explanation of what a successful verification looks like, the agent cannot predict the return value or interpret failures. The many sibling tools and the optional lat/lng/fieldId parameters make the lack of self-contained context a significant gap.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description needed to explain layerId, fieldId, lat, and lng. It only loosely maps 'layer' and 'field' to two of the parameters and leaves lat/lng completely unexplained, giving an agent little basis for constructing a correct call.

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 names a verb ('check') and a resource ('layer and field'), and lists concrete target systems (/layers, /fields, /objects, /object, KML, intersect, GeoServer WMS, admin UI), so it is not a bare tautology. However, it never defines what 'check' verifies—existence, consistency, correctness, or availability—and the leading 'Wiki step 8' reference makes the purpose depend on external context rather than standing alone.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool over siblings such as spatial_get_layer, spatial_health, or spatial_compare_remote. The only hint is 'Wiki step 8', which is opaque to an agent that has not read the wiki.

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