list_layers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "List" implies a non-mutating read, and it discloses the shape of what comes back (UIDs, types, visibility, children), which is useful. But it says nothing about ordering, scale/cost of recursion, or whether reads are filtered by the active texture set.

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. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why the usage and parameter gaps exist.

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 the description needn't explain return values, and it appropriately only summarizes them. The remaining gap is behavioral/scoping context: what texture_set does and how this differs from the other layer-listing tools is left to inference.

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 both parameters are undocumented in structured fields. The phrase "optional group children" loosely gestures at the recursive flag, but texture_set — an important scoping parameter with a null default — gets no explanation whatsoever, leaving half the surface ambiguous.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List layers") and enumerates what the listing contains: stable UIDs, types, visibility, and group children. That is concrete and distinguishable from mutating siblings like rename_layer or set_layer_properties, though it never contrasts itself with find_layers or snapshot_layer_tree.

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 statement of when to use this versus close alternatives such as find_layers (presumably searched) or snapshot_layer_tree (presumably for diffing). The word "optional" hints that children may be excluded, but no condition or alternative routing is offered.

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