get_cop_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get info' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what specific info is returned, whether the plane/layer must exist, or any error behavior. The lack of an output schema also leaves the return format unspecified.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. There is no wasted wording or redundant detail.

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 getter with two parameters and no output schema, the description gives a basic idea but lacks essential parameter semantics and usage context. An agent would likely need additional details about what 'path' refers to and what 'info' includes to invoke the tool confidently.

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 provides minimal parameter guidance. The phrase 'plane/layer' hints at the plane_name parameter, but 'path' (the required parameter) is not explained, and the default value 'C' for plane_name is not mentioned. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action ('Get info') and the target resource ('a specific plane/layer in a COP node'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cop_info or get_cop_geometry, which focus on node-level info or geometry.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when you need details about a plane/layer within a COP node. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., get_cop_info for node-level info) or 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.