Get Moonvy layer tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals a behavioral trait — the output can be large and should be constrained to protect model context — which is valuable. But it stays silent on what includeHidden does, whether hidden layers are traversed, and the shape/size of the returned payload beyond 'styles'. Partial but non-empty disclosure.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence delivers actionable usage guidance. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the context-compactness tradeoff, and hints at two parameter groups. It omits when-to-choose-this-tool guidance and includeHidden semantics. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is only 33% (only url and frameId have descriptions), so the description must compensate for the four undocumented parameters. It does address maxDepth/maxNodes via 'Limit depth and node count' and withStyle via 'Styles include exact UI values and CSS', but includeHidden is never explained. It partially compensates but leaves a gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Return the nested design layer tree'). The word 'nested' usefully distinguishes it from the flat-filter sibling moonvy_list_layers, and mentioning that styles carry 'exact UI values and CSS' adds concrete scope. It could more explicitly contrast itself with list_layers and get_design, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 instruction to 'Limit depth and node count to keep model context compact' gives real guidance on how to invoke the tool responsibly. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and never names any sibling alternative, so an agent must infer when to pick get_tree over list_layers, get_design, or get_node_style.

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