autocad_list_layers

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'through COM' and 'respecting the current application/document binding', which hints at COM interop and dependency on an active AutoCAD connection, but doesn't specify required permissions, error conditions, or whether it requires an attached session. There's no mention of what happens if no document is bound or if COM fails.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose and then the differentiation. No wasted words; all information is relevant.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (list of layers?) or the behavior of the 'limit' parameter. It also doesn't clarify what 'respecting the current application/document binding' entails operationally (e.g., what happens if not attached).

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% for a single optional 'limit' parameter. The description doesn't explain what 'limit' does (e.g., maximum layers to return) or its constraints (max 500). The schema has the type and range but no description, so the description should compensate, but it doesn't mention the parameter at all.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (layers) plus the source (live AutoCAD document through COM). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_layers' by explicitly naming it and the source difference (internally 'internal CAD session' vs live AutoCAD). This is clear, though the phrase 'respecting the current application/document binding' is a bit abstract without further context.

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?

Provides clear context: use this to list layers from a live AutoCAD instance, as opposed to the internal CAD session's list_layers. It doesn't explicitly state when to choose one over the other beyond the source distinction, but the implication is clear. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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