List Layers

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: the entire layer table is always returned, never truncated, and compact envelopes always report truncated=false. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent predict response behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise behavioral guarantee. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only listing tool with rich input schema and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the full scope ('all layers'), the key behavioral guarantee (never truncated), and the relationship to the compact parameter, leaving no material gaps.

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?

Input schema descriptions already cover 100% of parameters, and the description adds a useful nuance: for this particular tool, the compact envelope's truncated field will always be false. This clarifies expected behavior for the 'compact' parameter beyond the generic schema description.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'all layers with their properties (color, linetype, frozen, locked, visibility)' — clearly distinguishes from sibling layer mutation tools and other list tools like block_list or linetype_list.

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 implies when to use it: when you need the complete layer table with properties. It emphasizes never truncating, which is useful context, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus sibling tools like entity_list or layer_set_current.

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