list_layers

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (per-layer name, id, visibility, opacity, blend mode, dimensions, alpha) and the default image index, which is genuinely useful. It omits ordering of the returned layers, behavior when the image index is out of range, and whether layers are listed top-to-bottom or bottom-to-top.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Parameters block and an explicit Returns line — the structure is easy to scan and has no filler. The Returns line is dense but earns its space given there is no output schema.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and return fields, which is close to adequate. Missing pieces are layer ordering, error/empty-image behavior, and how to obtain a valid image_index, all of which an agent needs to use the result correctly.

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 is the only source for what image_index means, and it does define it as the target image index with default 0. It does not say how to discover valid indices (e.g., via list_images) or what happens for a missing image, leaving a real gap for the sole parameter.

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 and resource ('List all layers in an image') plus what comes back ('their properties'). It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings such as get_image_metadata or get_state_snapshot, which also expose structural information, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite dozens of siblings touching layers (create_layer, set_layer_properties, reorder_layer, get_state_snapshot). Usage is only implied by the read-only phrasing 'List'.

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