check_layer_standard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'não altera nada'. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the return contents (count, types, sample handles, missing standard layers) and the limitation that it does not check internal block content.

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 text is well-structured and front-loaded: core purpose first, then usage, parameters, return details, limitation, and a concrete example. Every sentence serves a purpose 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 tool's complexity, 0% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: parameter semantics, return format, and behavioral boundaries. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: allowed_layers accepts names or wildcard patterns with an example, ignore_layers has a clear default, and limit defines the maximum sample entities per layer.

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 ('Relata') and resource ('entidades do espaço modelo em camadas FORA do padrão informado'), with clear scope and no ambiguity. It distinguishes itself from general audit siblings by focusing exclusively on layers outside a given standard.

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 a clear 'QUANDO USAR' section with the exact scenario: design audit before delivery. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., dxf_audit) or state when not to use this tool.

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