layers_get_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys the read-only nature through 'Returns' and discloses return contents (IDs, positions, styles, hierarchy), which is useful. However, it says nothing about result size, ordering, or behavior on an empty canvas, so the behavioral picture is only partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the operation, scope, and returned fields with no filler. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, which it does at a high level (IDs, positions, styles). It stops short of indicating the structure or depth of the hierarchy an agent will receive, leaving the response shape partly unexplained.

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 per the baseline rule the description is not required to explain parameter meaning. The description does not add or detract here, warranting the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('complete hierarchical list of all objects/layers currently on the canvas') plus the fields returned. It distinguishes itself reasonably from listing siblings like pages_list and assets_list_stickers by scoping to canvas contents, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'currently on the canvas' implies the read/list context and that it reflects live state, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternative. Usage is only implied.

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