serp_layers

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds real value: color must be [r,g,b] 0-1, 'assign' means moving objects to a layer, and path naming disambiguates same-named layers. However, it omits destructive side effects (does 'delete' remove the layer's objects? what does 'current' change?) and gives no return-format note. Useful but incomplete for a tool with multiple mutating actions.

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 content is dense and every sentence carries information, but it is a run-on block that mixes action dispatch syntax with a parenthetical for color and a trailing path-note. The path/parent explanation is jammed onto the end with a comma splice. Information-valuable but poorly structured and hard to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. But for a 7-parameter, 8-action dispatch tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, key call semantics are missing: how rename uses name/new_name, how visible toggles per layer, and whether delete cascades to objects. The action list, color, and parent are covered; the rest is left to inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 7 parameters. It explicitly explains color format, the parent semantics for nesting, and implies objects via 'assign'. But new_name (the rename mechanism) and visible are never mentioned — an agent cannot know how rename or visibility toggling work. Partial coverage only.

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?

'Manage layers' is a generic opener, but the enumerated action list (list, create, rename, visible, current, color, assign, delete) makes the resource and scope concrete. It clearly distinguishes from siblings — none of serp_scene_info, serp_select, or serp_command handle layer management.

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 gives in-tool usage guidance (pass parent to create, name by path 'Walls::Interior') that helps an agent call it correctly, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives. For a multi-action dispatch tool in a suite that includes serp_command and serp_select, there is no differentiation or exclusion guidance.

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