get_layers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals what metrics are rolled up but says nothing about side effects, read-only status, handling of old layers, or filtering behavior such as the include_old option.

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 definition is a single focused sentence that front-loads the core concept ('per-layer rollup') and immediately lists the returned metrics. There is no wasted wording or redundancy.

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 output schema probably explains the return shape, but the description omits essential invocation context: what include_old means, when to prefer this tool over similar fixture queries, and whether any data is excluded or transformed. This is not complete enough for reliable autonomous selection.

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% and the description fails to mention include_old at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter name and default. The agent is left to guess what 'old' refers to and how the default false affects the rollup.

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 identifies a specific aggregated resource ('layers') and the data it produces: fixture count, wattage, and unique fixture types. It stops short of a clear verb and does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but 'per-layer rollup' is distinctive enough.

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 explicit advice or when-to-use/when-not-to-use context appears, and no alternative sibling is named. The only guidance is the weak implication that this tool is for per-layer aggregate queries, which is not enough to choose between it and get_fixture_counts or get_fixture_summary.

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