Export Layer

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses reprojection behavior during export and the vector-only nature of filter_expression. It lacks details on overwrite behavior and file system permissions, but core behaviors are covered.

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 uses two sentences with no redundancy. Key information is front-loaded ('Export vector/raster to disk'), and parameter explanations are succinct yet informative.

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?

The description covers the main functionality: format, reprojection, and filtered exports. It omits details about file overwriting, permissions, and the need for the layer to be loaded, but these are reasonable assumptions for a file export tool.

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?

With zero schema descriptions, the description adds meaning for target_crs (reprojection) and filter_expression (QGIS expression for subsets). It explains output_path extension determines format. However, layer_id is not elaborated beyond being an identifier.

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 it exports vector/raster to disk and that format is derived from the output path extension. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export_atlas and export_layout by focusing on individual layers, not layouts or atlases.

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 explains format selection via extension, optional reprojection with target_crs, and vector-only filtering. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other export tools (e.g., export_atlas) or mention prerequisites like the layer needing to be loaded.

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