zurich_geo_layers

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns a markdown-formatted list (or JSON) and mentions the format parameter, but does not disclose further behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover.

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 four sentences, clearly front-loaded with the main purpose. It is well-structured and free of fluff, though it could be slightly more concise by merging the second and third sentences.

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 simple listing tool with an output schema (present but not shown), the description covers purpose, linkage to a sibling tool, and output formats. It is complete enough for an agent to understand how to use 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 coverage is 0% (context signal), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'format' can be 'markdown' or 'json' and 'Markdown-formatierte Liste... (oder JSON bei format='json')'. This adds meaning but is minimal; the schema itself also has a description for format.

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 clearly states the tool lists all available WFS layers of Zurich's geoportal, specifying the information shown (Layer-ID, WFS service name, typename, description). It also notes that the IDs can be used with zurich_geo_features, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 implies usage context: to get available layers before using zurich_geo_features. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it list exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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