List Layer States

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond that: the states are the server's own portable states rather than AutoCAD Layer States Manager entries, and 'No refusals' tells the agent the call always succeeds. That is meaningful behavioral information not present in the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope and the disambiguation. The trailing 'Pack: settings · lean: no' metadata is cryptic but appears to be a house convention rather than 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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is listed, what the entries are not, and that the call will not be refused. Return values are already in the output schema.

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, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to document, and it correctly does not invent parameter behavior.

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?

Names the resource (layer states), the scope (every state under ACADMCP_LAYERSTATES), and the returned fields (description and layer count). Critically, it disambiguates from AutoCAD Layer States Manager entries, a confusingly similar concept an agent could easily conflate.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the read step before layer_state_restore/delete, but no sibling is named and no when/when-not guidance is given. 'No refusals' hints at reliability but is not a usage rule.

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