list_layers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating read and the parenthetical discloses exactly which attributes come back, which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It says nothing about scoping limits (all layers vs. visible only) or result size, leaving gaps.

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 English sentence is short, front-loaded, and wastes nothing. The appended Georgian translation is redundant for an agent and slightly dilutes the density, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the implicit scope (the open project). It is complete enough to call correctly, though the absence of any relationship to layer_info or add_layer/remove_layer leaves the layer-tool cluster under-described.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals there is nothing to configure by scoping the call to 'the open project'.

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 and resource ('List layers of the open project') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent immediately knows what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling layer_info, which also concerns layers, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no pointer to alternatives such as layer_info for per-layer detail. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the bulk-enumeration option.

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