pcb_get_layers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds the 'enabled' filter but does not explain further behavioral details like whether it returns layer names or includes copper/non-copper layers; the output schema presumably covers the return structure.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the verb and object with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter operation.

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 tool with good annotations and an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys its function. The term 'enabled' is slightly ambiguous but understandable in a PCB context, and the simplicity of the tool means no additional context is necessary.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. No additional parameter details are needed, and the baseline for 0-param tools 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'enabled board layers', clearly indicating a read-only enumeration. The qualifier 'enabled' differentiates it from related tools like pcb_get_stackup or pcb_get_footprint_layers.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling layer-related tools (e.g., pcb_get_stackup, pcb_get_footprint_layers), explicit disambiguation would be valuable, though the zero-parameter nature makes it easy to invoke.

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