makeup_layers

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: it reads the scene file, defines what makes a layer ineffective (hidden object/parent, disabled component, both intensities 0), and explains how part_from and color weighting are derived. However, the save_to parameter implies a save/side-effect operation that the description never addresses at all, leaving a meaningful behavioral gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the remainder is one dense run-on paragraph that mixes usage, effectiveness rules, part-inference logic, and output field meanings without separation. Most clauses are earned because there is no output schema, yet the lack of structure hurts scanability.

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 complex analysis tool with no output schema, the description explains the returned fields an agent needs (groups, absent, part_from, color, hsl, intensity) and the effectiveness determination, which is the important part. The only significant omission is what save_to does, keeping it from 5.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both project_dir and save_to. The description adds context about the project directory (pointing to works_download's project_path) but says nothing about save_to's semantics that goes beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a clear verb+resource: list all makeup layers (FaceMask妆容层 and EyeColorV2美瞳) in a project. It specifies the exact scope and the two layer types covered, so an agent can distinguish this from general project or scene inspection tools without reading further.

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?

Gives concrete use cases: see what a makeup set is missing, or reverse-engineer which parts and colors someone else's works_download project used, plus a prerequisite (save_project first for a project being edited). It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of 5.

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