Get Edit Status

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds context by specifying exactly which attributes are returned (editable, modified, undo/redo availability, counts), giving the agent a clearer behavioral picture beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the resource ('Edit state of a layer') and immediately lists the key output categories. There is no redundant information or filler.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, read-only) and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail. The description captures the core functionality well. Missing edge cases like layer-not-found or not-editable behavior are minor and acceptable for a status query.

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's single parameter layer_id has no description, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'of a layer' clarifies that the tool operates on a specific layer, but it does not explicitly define the parameter or provide additional format/semantics. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but could be more explicit.

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 identifies the tool as returning the edit state of a layer, enumerating specific data points (editable, modified, undo/redo availability, counts of pending changes). This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes the tool from editing mutators like start_editing or commit_edits.

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 implies usage when a user needs to inspect the current edit status of a layer, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or context about editing workflows. Given the many edit-related sibling tools, explicit alternatives would be helpful.

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