Get Layer List

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scope ('current PCB board') which is useful, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as error conditions (e.g., no board open) or whether the returned list is ordered. It meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and result. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. No filler or redundant 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 simple read-only list operation with no parameters and an existing output schema. The description fully captures the tool's purpose and scope ('all layers defined in the current PCB board'), which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it. The output schema handles return-value structure, so the description need not elaborate further.

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 input schema is empty (100% schema coverage). Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description correctly implies that no arguments are needed and the tool operates on the current board. No further parameter explanation is required.

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 function with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('list of all layers'), scoped to the current PCB board. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_layer (which creates layers) and set_active_layer (which changes the active layer).

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need the list of all layers in the current board) but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. It does not name sibling tools like get_board_info or add_layer as alternatives, so the usage context is implicit rather than clearly defined.

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