get_layer_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains that for vector layers, fields come with up to 3 example values (not full enumeration) and that raster layers have null fields. This discloses behavioral traits beyond the basic summary.

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 two short paragraphs with the key action in the first sentence. It efficiently covers vector/raster differences 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?

Given the output schema is rich, the description effectively explains what the output includes for both layer types and notes limitations (example values not full distinct). It is complete for the tool's purpose.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no detail about the sole parameter 'layer_name' beyond its implied meaning. It does not specify format, completeness, or constraints, relying entirely on the parameter name.

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 starts with a clear verb 'Summarize' and specifies the resource 'a layer' along with the exact outputs: feature count, geometry type, CRS, extent, and fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining it replaces five separate calls, while siblings like filter_layer_by_expression or reproject_layer serve different purposes.

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 states this tool replaces five round-trips (layer_info, list_fields, samples) with a single response, implying it is the go-to for quick summary. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to alternatives among the sibling tools.

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