os_peat_layers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description's 'List' wording is consistent with those traits. The phrase 'with provenance and caveats' adds a little context about the output content but does not meaningfully expand beyond what the annotations and output schema already imply.

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 with no filler. The main verb and object are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 simple, read-only listing tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is mostly complete. It states the object, the two layer categories, and the general character of the results (provenance and caveats), though it could briefly explain the kind parameter or the distinction from os_peat_evidence_paths.

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 the undocumented 'kind' parameter, but it does not directly explain how 'all', 'direct', or 'proxy' map to the described output. The mention of 'peat evidence layers and proxy layers' loosely aligns with the enum values but is not explicit enough to resolve ambiguity.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('peat evidence layers and proxy layers') and indicates the output includes provenance and caveats. It is clear on what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the closely named sibling os_peat_evidence_paths.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives or exclusions. A sibling tool named os_peat_evidence_paths exists, and the description gives no hint about how this listing tool relates to it or when one should be preferred over the other.

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