export_features

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

With no annotations, the description discloses read-only behavior, explains the 'where' clause and 'limit' truncation indication, and notes output coordinates are WGS84. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentences plus inline parameter clarifications, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value 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 parameter count (4) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, key parameters, and behavioral quirks. It could mention the 'path' parameter format but is adequate overall.

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%; the description adds meaning for 'where' (SQL clause with example) and 'limit' (caps features, truncation indication). However, 'path' and 'timeout_seconds' are not explained, so not all parameters benefit.

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 reads vector data (shapefile, feature class, layer) and outputs GeoJSON. It uses the verb 'read' and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_features.

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 identifies it as the inverse of create_features, implying usage for inspecting geometries and attributes. It provides context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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