reproject_layer

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

The description fully discloses key behaviors: the original layer remains unchanged, a new in-memory layer is added to the project, and validation criteria are detailed ('validated is true only if the output CRS matches target_crs and its feature count matches the source layer's'). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and excels.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two clear sentences. The first states the primary purpose, and the second adds essential behavioral details. No redundant or irrelevant information is present.

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 no annotations and a low-parameter description coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and validation. It does not explain return values, but an output schema exists. The description is sufficient for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 three parameters: name, layer_name, target_crs. The description only indirectly explains layer_name (as 'vector layer') and target_crs (as 'new CRS') but does not clarify the format for target_crs (e.g., EPSG code) or the purpose of the optional 'name' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 tool's action: 'Reproject a vector layer to a new CRS, saving the result as a new layer.' It uses a specific verb (reproject) and resource (vector layer), and the outcome is well-defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like filtering or exporting.

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 implicitly advises when to use the tool (when a reprojected copy is needed) and explicitly notes the original layer is untouched, implying no destructive side effects. It does not provide explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context from sibling tools suggests no overlap.

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