get_landscape_layers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: the silent-absorption failure mode when a layer is absent, the 'cheap check' cost signal, and the explicit return shape. This is substantive context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then the pre-painting rationale, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, and it is well under the size where conciseness would suffer.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the return shape (landscape_actor_name, layers, layer_count), and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%; the single optional landscape_actor_name parameter is fully documented in the schema ('defaults to first found'). The description says layers are listed 'on a landscape' but adds no format or default semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (paint/weight layers registered on a landscape), plus what each entry contains (name plus LandscapeLayerInfo asset). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like paint_landscape_layer or add_landscape_layer without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as 'the cheap check before painting' and names the downstream consumer, paint_landscape_layer, with the consequence of skipping it ('a layer missing from this list will silently absorb any paint_landscape_layer call'). It also gives a positive use case: discovering the layer names a terrain material expects. When-to-use and the linked operation are both stated.

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