List Layers

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: 'Never truncated — a drawing's whole layer table is returned — so a compact envelope here always reports truncated=false.' This tells the agent exactly what to expect about completeness and the truncation field, which is genuinely useful and not present in the annotation.

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 only two sentences: the first states the core purpose and returned properties, the second front-loads the critical no-truncation behavior. There is no repetition, fluff, or unnecessary detail—every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with a full output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what is listed, what properties are included, and the completeness guarantee. The parameter schemas and annotations handle the rest, so nothing important is missing for correct invocation.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is a 3, but the description adds real value by listing the default returned properties and clarifying that the compact envelope always reports truncated=false, which is not in the schema text. It reinforces and complements the detailed schema documentation for both fields and compact.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List all layers' and enumerates the exact properties returned (color, linetype, frozen, locked, visibility). It clearly distinguishes this read-only listing tool from mutation siblings like layer_modify, layer_freeze, layer_delete, and even from linetype_list by focusing specifically on layer state.

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 makes the intended use context clear—retrieve the complete layer table with all properties—and its 'whole layer table' phrasing signals this is the go-to inspection tool. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of layer_modify' or list exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide a capable agent.

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