uv-layers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states that UV layers and the active UV layer are listed; it does not clarify return shape, behavior when no object is supplied, error cases, or whether anything is modified.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no padding or redundancy. It fails to provide some useful surrounding context, but as a prose description it is structurally efficient.

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 simple list-style tool with one optional parameter, the description is minimally functional: it names the primary output (UV layers) and the active-layer indicator. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no guidance about object fallback or returned data structure, the completeness remains only partial.

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 one optional parameter, 'object', is not mentioned in the tool description at all. The schema title 'Mesh object to inspect (defaults to active)' provides some meaning, but with 0% schema description coverage and no description-level parameter guidance, the parameter semantics remain under-supported.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List', and names a concrete resource: UV layers, plus the active UV layer. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like uv-layer_create, uv-layer_set_active, and uv-layer_delete, which are mutation-oriented rather than read-oriented.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as uv-report or other UV-layer inspection tools. The intended use must be inferred from the single word 'List', and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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