find_layers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say what an empty query returns (all layers?), whether matching is case-sensitive, whether filters are ANDed, or whether results are capped — all material for a search tool. It also omits the texture_set filter entirely.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the three filter axes are listed immediately. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why behavioral and parameter gaps remain.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 4-parameter search tool with no annotations the description is thin: one parameter is unmentioned and default/semantics of empty filters are undefined. An agent could call it, but could not predict its results reliably.

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%, so the description must compensate and it partly does: it clarifies that query matches on partial name while node_type requires an exact match, which the bare schema never states. The fourth parameter, texture_set, is left undocumented in both schema and description, so coverage is incomplete.

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 (Search) plus resource (layers) and enumerates the three filter axes (partial name, exact node type, visibility). An agent can tell this is a filtered lookup rather than a mutation. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling list_layers, which is the nearest alternative.

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 only describes what the tool does; it never says when to reach for it over list_layers or the layer-tree inspection tools (snapshot_layer_tree, diff_layer_snapshots). There are no preconditions, no exclusions, and no note on how filters combine.

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