Get Accessible Layers For Authenticated User By Context

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description introduces confusion by referencing 'Document Markup records' instead of layers, potentially misleading about the return type. It does not explain pagination behavior despite having page and per_page parameters, and offers no additional behavioral context.

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 four sentences but includes contradictory information (layers vs. records) and redundant listing of required parameters. It is not efficiently front-loaded and could be more concise and coherent to avoid confusion.

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 absence of output schema, the description should clarify return structure and behavior, especially regarding pagination. It fails to resolve the ambiguity between layers and Document Markup records, and does not help distinguish from sibling tools. The description is incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 each parameter has a basic description. The tool description merely reiterates the required parameters without adding meaning. For a read operation with well-documented schema, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 states it retrieves accessible layers for a context, providing a clear verb and resource. However, it contradicts itself by later mentioning fetching details of specific Document Markup records, which seems unrelated to layers. This ambiguity reduces clarity, and it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_accessible_groups_for_authenticated_user_by_context'.

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 lists required parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_layers_for_context' or 'get_layer_by_id'. There is no mention of typical scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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