List Moonvy layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output type (flat index) but does not mention critical behaviors such as the default exclusion of hidden layers (though `includeHidden` parameter exists), the `maxNodes` limit and its effects, or whether the list is sorted. It also does not disclose any side effects or limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence succinctly lists what is returned, and the second gives actionable guidance. The key differentiating term 'flat' is front-loaded. Every word 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?

The description covers what the tool returns in terms of data fields, but it omits important operational context such as the default behavior of `includeHidden`, the effect of `maxNodes`, or whether the index is recursive. Since there is no output schema to detail return structure, the description should be more explicit about how results are formatted and bounded. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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?

The description adds no information about any of the four parameters; it does not explain `url`, `frameId`, `maxNodes`, or `includeHidden`. However, the input schema itself already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., url format, maxNodes constraints), so the schema does most of the heavy lifting. Given the moderate schema coverage (50%), the description does not compensate for the gap but also does not contradict or add confusion.

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 clearly states the action ('Return a flat layer index') and the resource ('Moonvy layers'), and specifies the exact output fields (node IDs, names, types, depth, absolute bounds, parent-relative positions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `moonvy_get_tree` by emphasizing 'flat' rather than hierarchical structure, and from `moonvy_get_node_style` by positioning this as a precursor step.

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 provides a concrete use case: 'Use it to find a node ID before requesting exact style.' This tells the agent when it is appropriate to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it (e.g., when a tree structure is needed, use `moonvy_get_tree`). The guidance is specific enough but lacks exclusions or comparison to siblings.

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