layer_getProperties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It indicates a read operation but does not disclose return structure, error behavior, or permissions. The phrase 'detailed properties' is vague and does not enumerate the full set of properties returned.

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 single focused sentence with no fluff, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource. The use of 'etc.' is slightly vague but does not undermine conciseness.

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 getter with no output schema, the description gives some idea of the return via examples, but lacks detail on the full property list and error cases. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 100% for layerId, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed properties of a specific layer', with concrete examples (type, visibility, transform) that clearly distinguish it from sibling setter tools like layer_setTransform and layer_setVisibility.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get', but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools for when not to use this.

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