get_layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Return' which implies a read operation, but it does not clarify idempotency, caching, or what 'generic configuration' includes (e.g., may be metadata vs. actual data). It also doesn't mention whether it requires prior setup (like a layer being imported) or if it can operate on any layer.

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 very concise, one sentence, and uses clear language. It is well-structured for quick scanning Per the rubric, this is not a flaw in itself, but it is under-specified for a tool with no other documentation. The sentence is efficient but leaves out critical details.

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?

Given that the tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, the description could be minimal, but it is still incomplete. The output schema exists, so the return structure is known, but the description does not clarify what a 'complete generic configuration' means, nor does it differentiate from 'inspect_layer' which likely provides a similar config. Given the low complexity, a 3 is fair: it covers the basic task but lacks important context.

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 description coverage is 0% and there is only one parameter, 'layer_id'. The description does not explain the format or meaning of 'layer_id' (e.g., is it a string identifier, an integer, a UUID?). It does not provide examples or mention that the layer must exist, so the agent might not know how to populate this parameter correctly.

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 the verb 'Return' and the resource 'complete generic configuration for one layer', which indicates a retrieval operation. While it is conciseless, it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_layers' (which lists layers) and 'inspect_layer' (likely more detailed inspection). However, it lacks explicit differentiation from 'get_feature' or 'get_source'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for generic configuration as opposed to specific features or sources, nor does it suggest using 'list_layers' first to find the layer_id. The description gives no context about typical use cases or preconditions.

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