Get Layer Features

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses concrete behavioral details: flat dicts with _fid and top-level attributes, limit enforcement (max 50, larger refused), default 10, offset paging, optional geometry under _geometry, and the distinction between feature_count and matched. This is rich, useful transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the core action and then packing essential behavioral constraints into a few sentences. Each clause adds information about output format, filter syntax, paging, limits, or return counts without redundancy.

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 input semantics, output shape, filtering, paging, geometry handling, and count semantics. Since an output schema existschers, return format details are already structurally defined, and the description still adds valuable field-level and count-level context. This is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining limit's max/default and refusal behavior, offset's paging role, expression's QGIS filter syntax with examples, include_geometry's effect, and the meaning of feature_count and matched. Every parameter except layer_id is meaningfully documented; layer_id is obvious from the resource context.

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 verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('features from a vector layer'), and differentiates this from sibling get_* tools like get_layer_extent or get_layers. It also communicates the exact output shape, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 the tool is for retrieving features from vector layers with optional filtering and paging, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like identify_features, select_features, execute_sql, or get_unique_values. No usage exclusions or comparison to sibling tools are provided.

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