List one layer (paginated)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses several important behaviors: the potentially large response size (megabytes), the meaning of sourceGone:true (record never deleted), and the side effect that the call may persist lazy expiry/drip housekeeping even on a read. This is strong transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds essential context: purpose, pagination behavior, sourceGone semantics, and side-effect warning. No waste.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers most important operational details: purpose, pagination limits, a field semantic, and a side effect. It lacks an explicit description of the response shape, but that is not critical for a listing tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the limit parameter's default and advises against raising it unnecessarily, and it mentions the lapsed layer value. However, it does not explain the offset parameter or enumerate all layer values beyond lapsed, leaving some work to the schema.

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 tool lists the contents of a layer ('See what's in one layer'), explicitly including the 'lapsed' layer to answer 'what did I let go of'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stats or undo, which are clearly different operations.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use it (to inspect any layer) and cautions about pagination: 'default limit 50, raise it only if you actually need more in one call.' It also warns about the large unpaginated JSON and the housekeeping side effect, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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