get_web_map_layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool is read-only and that it returns feature-service URLs, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication expectations, error behavior, whether the item must be public, or the exact response shape, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the explanatory clause about revealing feature-service URLs earns its place by clarifying the tool's purpose and value.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the input type, where to get the input, and what the output reveals. The lack of an output schema and annotations makes it slightly less complete, but the description covers the essential context an agent needs 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?

The schema already documents item_id as a 32-hex-character string, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that item_id comes from search_portal_items or list_public_apps, which helps the agent source valid input values.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and names a precise resource: operational layers of a portal web map or app by item id. It also states the key outcome—revealing the feature-service URLs an app is built on—which clearly differentiates it from related tools like describe_layer or query_layer.

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 clear context for when to use the tool by pointing to search_portal_items or list_public_apps as the source for item_id, and frames it as a fast way to discover the data behind a public map. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the source guidance effectively implies the tool is for portal maps/apps rather than raw layers.

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