bbox_of

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the output CRS (WGS84) and that the extent covers either the whole layer or a filtered subset, which is genuinely useful. It does not say whether filters are applied before geometry computation, what happens with an empty result set, or whether expensive filters cause full scans.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the output (bbox and centre) and the CRS, followed by the practical use case. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter read tool this is close, but with no output schema the description should specify the shape of the bbox and centre returned (e.g., list of coordinates vs. object) and clarify the required `layer` argument, which is otherwise undocumented.

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 50%; the Filter object is documented in detail inline, while the required `layer` parameter has no description at all. The description contributes the idea that `filters` narrows the extent to a subset, but adds no detail on layer naming conventions or interaction between filters and geometry.

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 states a specific computed output (WGS84 bounding box and centre) for a specific resource (a layer or filtered subset), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not name or contrast itself with siblings such as describe_layer or aggregate, but the operation is distinctive enough to disambiguate in practice.

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?

"Useful for framing maps or checking coverage" gives two concrete use cases, which implies when to reach for it. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., when describe_layer's metadata already suffices), and no stated preconditions such as the layer needing geometry.

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