get_fill_projection

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Inspect" does convey a non-mutating read, which is the most important trait, but it says nothing about error behavior on non-fill layers, required permissions, or whether the "common UV transformation" is a normalized summary versus raw 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and target come first and nothing is redundant.

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-value explanation is appropriately omitted, and the tool is simple. However, the undescribed uid and the unstated precondition that the layer be a Fill layer leave meaningful gaps for a call that will fail outright with a wrong or non-fill uid.

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 single parameter 'uid' is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description never states that uid identifies the target layer, nor what kind of identifier it is — leaving the caller to guess.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Inspect") and a specific resource ("a Fill layer's projection mode and common UV transformation"), which cleanly signals a read operation on fill projection state. It implicitly separates from the sibling mutators set_fill_projection / set_fill_projection_advanced, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the layer must be a Fill layer), and no mention of the sibling set_fill_projection / set_fill_projection_advanced as the write-side counterparts. An agent must infer the read-before-write workflow entirely on its own.

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