list_layers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Compact summaries' is a meaningful behavioral hint that the result is not full layer payloads, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. It does not mention pagination despite the limit/cursor schema, though the output schema covers return shape.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word carries meaning. There is no filler or restatement of the schema.

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 simple list tool with an output schema and optional pagination parameters, the description is largely sufficient to invoke it correctly. It could add an alternative pointer or pagination note, but the schema already supplies defaults and the output schema covers return values.

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 has 0% description coverage and the tool description adds no meaning for limit or cursor. When schema coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it is entirely silent on how pagination and page size behave beyond the schema's bare defaults.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('Geo Hub layers'), and an output shape ('compact summaries'). This distinguishes it from the 'get_*' and 'inspect_*' siblings, which imply detailed single-layer access.

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 verb and resource imply the use case: enumerate layer summaries rather than retrieving one layer. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over siblings like get_layer or inspect_layer, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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