origin_get_layer_info

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 the read-only inspection nature and the components inspected. However, it does not explain behaviors like error handling for invalid graph names or out-of-range layer indices, or the effect of default parameter values.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple inspection tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic function. However, it omits important context like the default behavior of graph_name (likely the active graph) and the fact that no parameters are required. The output schema likely fills in return value details, so completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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%, but the description only indirectly implies the parameters via the resource statement. It does not add meaning beyond the schema titles (e.g., what happens when graph_name is null or layer_index defaults to 0).

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 uses a specific verb (inspect) and explicitly names the resource (graph layer, axes, plots). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like origin_get_graph_info (which inspects the entire graph) and origin_set_axis (which modifies axes).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as origin_get_graph_info. It does not mention any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions.

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