list_structuresReturn the catalogue of landing structures Layero ships with.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the context that these structures are the ones 'Layero ships with,' which helps clarify scope but does not reveal additional behavioral details like pagination or response format.
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 a single, focused sentence: 'Return the catalogue of landing structures Layero ships with.' It is perfectly sized, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no superfluous information.
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?
This is a parameterless, read-only list tool with an output schema available. The description clearly explains what the tool returns and the source of the data. Complexity is low, so the description is sufficiently complete.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed.
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 uses a clear verb 'Return' and specifies the resource as 'the catalogue of landing structures Layero ships with.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_domains and list_design_systems by explicitly naming 'landing structures' as the subject.
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 offers implicit usage guidance: it is a list tool for retrieving a catalog. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_design_systems or list_domains, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are distinct, but there's real confusion risk between the deploy-related set (cancel_deploy, retry_deploy, deploy_logs, diagnose_deploy) and the site-inspection set (site_status, read_site, site_issues, site_screenshot) where purposes overlap. compose_landing vs compose_landing_submit are differentiated mostly by an obscure note rather than naming. Several tools address similar concepts (landing composition, publishing, deploy) making agent misselection plausible.
Most tools use a clean verb_noun pattern (list_deploys, connect_domain, check_domain, publish_landing, read_site, rollback). However, conventions are mixed: some use compose/x/check/y (check_copy, check_domain, check_performance) while others use site_x (site_status, site_analytics, site_issues, site_screenshot) with inconsistent ordering. Descriptions mix English and Russian heavily, though that's content not naming.
27 tools is a large but arguably justified surface for a full site-building/deploying/monitoring platform spanning composition, domain management, deploys, performance, analytics, and environment configuration. It sits slightly above what feels tight, but each tool has a defined role in the overall workflow.
The surface covers the full landing lifecycle: compose, publish, deploy, monitor, rollback, diagnose, and connect external resources (domain, analytics, integrations). Minor gaps: no explicit tool for site deletion/teardown, only read_site for editing with refactor_site being narrow, and no way to update an existing landing's text beyond refactor. Still, core CRUD and operational flows are covered.