get_layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reads as a list of returned fields rather than a statement of behavior; it does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, whether it can fail, or whether any filtering/scope semantics apply. The 'get_layers' name implies retrieval, but the description itself adds no behavioral transparency.

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, lean phrase with no filler words, and it front-loads the key attributes. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though it would be slightly clearer as a full sentence like 'Get all layers with...'

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 zero-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient for invocation. However, it is missing an explicit scope statement (all layers vs. active layer) and any usage context, so an agent may not know exactly when this tool is the right choice.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the empty schema already shows. The description correctly omits parameter details; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 identifies the resource (layers) and the attributes returned (object count, visibility, line width, colour, style). The verb is only implied by the tool name 'get_layers', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the resource is specific and clear enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_levels, get_objects, or get_wall_types. It does not state whether this returns all layers, the active layer, or layers in the current view, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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