layer

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint: false, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behaviors. It lists all mutating operations (create, set_current, set_properties, freeze, thaw, lock, unlock) and their data fields, going beyond the annotation. However, it does not describe side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 compact, well-organized operation list. Each line corresponds to a valid operation and includes only necessary data fields. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 multi-operation tool, the description covers all operations and their data requirements. The include_screenshot parameter is unexplained, and general behavior such as return values and error handling is not addressed. However, an output schema exists, which likely covers return formats. Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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 schema has zero descriptions for operation, data, or include_screenshot. The description compensates by detailing per-operation data structures, e.g., 'set_properties — data: {name, color?, linetype?, lineweight?}', which is essential for correctly constructing the 'data' object. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 'Layer creation and management' and enumerates all operations (list, create, set_current, etc.), making the tool's scope explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like drawing, entity, block, and annotation by focusing on layer-specific actions.

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 operation list implies when to use each sub-operation (e.g., create for adding layers, freeze for toggling visibility), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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