Add Web Layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses critical nuances: crs is only meaningful for WMS/WFS, XYZ tiles are always EPSG:3857, requesting another CRS for XYZ results in an error rather than a silent fallback, and the response reports the actual CRS. This is rich, actionable behavioral context that goes far beyond a basic summary.

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 compact paragraph of four sentences, each earning its place. It starts with the core purpose, then systematically covers service values, CRS semantics, XYZ-specific behavior, and response content. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the main purpose, service type semantics, CRS behavior, error conditions, and response content (actual CRS). It falls slightly short of full completeness by not addressing what happens on invalid service values or how the layer name is used, but these are minor gaps.

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?

Since the input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), the description must compensate. It explains the service values ('xyz', 'wms', 'wfs') and the nuanced behavior of crs for WMS/WFS vs XYZ. However, it does not explicitly explain the 'url' and 'name' parameters, though their semantics are reasonably inferable. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a web layer (XYZ, WMS, WFS) to the project.' This clearly states what the tool does and explicitly lists the supported service types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_vector_layer or add_raster_layer. The scope is well-defined and immediately comprehensible.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (for web layers of types XYZ, WMS, WFS) and provides guidance on how to set the service parameter. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage. The CRS notes also give practical usage direction for different service types.

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