Get Object's Layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior: it returns null if the layer is unassigned. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe error behavior or response format, but these are less critical for a simple getter.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the operation and includes the key null-if-unassigned behavior. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 one-parameter getter, the description is mostly sufficient, but it omits the full range of supported target kinds and does not describe the format of the returned layer value. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these gaps leave some ambiguity.

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%, and the schema's target definition is rich enough to document accepted entity forms. The description adds only a partial, somewhat misleading list of entity types, so it does not meaningfully improve on 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 clearly states the tool returns the layer currently assigned to a target entity, which distinguishes it from layer mutation or listing tools. However, it only mentions object/tag/material while the schema supports additional entity kinds like render_data, take, video_post, shader, gv_node, and plugin_options, so the scope statement is incomplete.

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 the tool should be used when you need to query the current layer assignment of an entity, which is useful context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so usage guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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