lop_layer_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions 'NO_UNDO' and 'apply_response_cap', which are useful behavioral hints, and indicates it is read-only ('读取'). However, it doesn't disclose error behavior, output format, or side effects beyond these points, so it's partial.

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 two sentences with no redundant filler. The parenthetical 'add-usd-solaris-tools，NO_UNDO' is a bit cryptic but acceptable. It front-loads the primary action.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is somewhat brief. It doesn't explain what the returned data looks like or when the tool is appropriate. However, it covers key aspects like scope (root/session/sublayer) and limits (max_layers), making it minimally adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'max_layers' limits the number of layers, but 'ctx' and 'node_path' remain undefined. This adds some meaning for one parameter but not the others.

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 it reads root/session/sublayer layer stack information (identifier, real path, sublayer count) and is a summary. This distinguishes it from prim-focused or stage-level tools like lop_prim_search or lop_stage_info, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what the tool does, implying it's for inspecting layer stacks, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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