select_by_attribute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key side-effect dimension via selection_type (NEW_SELECTION, ADD_TO_SELECTION, REMOVE_FROM_SELECTION, SUBSET_SELECTION) and the default, and it warns that layer must be an exact Contents-pane name. However, it does not state whether the current selection is replaced, what happens on invalid SQL, or any output/error behavior.

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 one-sentence summary followed by a compact Args list. There is no redundant prose, and the most important usage constraint (exact layer name) appears directly in the parameter docs.

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 3-parameter tool with no schema-level descriptions, the description covers all inputs and the core behavior, and an output schema exists to define return values. Minor gaps remain, such as not explicitly stating that NEW_SELECTION replaces the existing selection, but overall the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must document all parameters, and it does: layer (exact name requirement), where_clause (SQL with two concrete examples), and selection_type (allowed values plus default). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 opening line states a specific action ('Select features') and resource ('a layer') plus the mechanism ('SQL WHERE clause'), so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_layer_features or clear_selection, though the selection_type argument makes the selection-state intent clear.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives. The description only explains parameters; it never says to prefer this over clear_selection, get_layer_features, or update_features, and it does not state prerequisites beyond exact layer naming.

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