status_get_layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this returns real-time data, cached data, or requires specific permissions. It also doesn't describe the return format, data structure, or any limitations like rate limits or availability constraints.

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 maximally concise with a single, clear sentence that states exactly what the tool does. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficiently front-loaded with essential information.

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 zero-parameter status retrieval tool, the description is adequate but minimal. Without annotations or output schema, it doesn't provide information about what 'status' means, what data format to expect, or how this differs from other status retrieval tools. It meets minimum requirements but lacks contextual richness that would help an agent understand the tool's specific role.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose rather than unnecessary parameter details.

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') and resource ('status of all layers'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'status_get_audience', 'status_get_screens', or 'status_get_stage' that also retrieve status information for different resources, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.

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 other status retrieval tools in the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or specific contexts where this tool is appropriate versus other status_get_* tools.

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