layer_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not state side effects, scope (e.g., all layers), or behavior for empty layers. However, for a simple reporting tool, the described behavior is fairly transparent and not misleading.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. Every word adds value: 'Per-layer report' defines the action, and the colon-delimited list of attributes is concise and structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose and content. It doesn't explicitly mention scope (e.g., all layers) or edge cases, but for a reporting tool this is minor. The output schema handles return values, so the description is largely complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description adds value by explaining what the report contains rather than needing to describe parameter syntax. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description fully compensates by defining the output fields.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a per-layer report and lists the specific attributes it returns (object count, color, linetype, frozen/locked). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_layers (which likely lists layer names) and drawing_info (overall drawing info). The verb 'report' is implied and the resource 'layer' is explicit.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the wording 'Per-layer report' makes it clear this is for detailed per-layer inspection, which is a reasonable implication. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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