list_layers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true / destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: wildcard matching semantics, that limit=0 means the server default, and that offset drives pagination. It does not say which document or layout the layers are read from, despite siblings like set_active_document and list_documents implying multiple documents.

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?

Tightly structured with a returned-fields line, a QUANDO USAR line, a parameters line, and an example — the most decision-relevant content (what it lists) comes first. No filler sentences.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and its parameter documentation is complete. The one gap is scope: it never states whether layers come from the active document only or across all documents, which matters given list_documents and set_active_document in the sibling set.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains name_filter's wildcard syntax (* and ?) with a concrete example ("PIPE-*"), marks it optional, defines limit's 0 = server default, and identifies offset as pagination. It even supplies a full call example, list_layers(name_filter="SUP*", limit=20).

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 and resource ("Lista as camadas do desenho") and enumerates the attributes returned (nome, cor/ACI, tipo de linha, ligada, congelada, bloqueada), which clearly separates it from layer-mutating siblings like create_layer or dxf_create_layer. It never explicitly names a sibling or a boundary case, so it falls short of the top mark.

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?

"QUANDO USAR" gives a concrete triggering context: inspecting layer structure before drawing, inserting blocks, or checking standards. It gives no when-not condition and does not name alternatives (e.g. check_layer_standard, query_entities), so routing among similar tools is still partly left to inference.

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