list_layers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the "(terse)" qualifier and the returned-field list, which usefully signals that this is a shallow enumeration rather than a full dump. It does not mention session scoping, revision behavior, or result size, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the returned fields, with zero filler. The parenthetical "(terse)" is slightly informal but earns its place by flagging output brevity.

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?

With no output schema, the description does well to enumerate the return fields, and the read-only nature is fully covered by annotations. But for a tool with three undocumented optional parameters, it leaves the agent guessing about session scoping and revision semantics, so it is only minimally complete.

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% across three parameters (requestId, sessionId, expectedRevision), and the description never mentions any of them. An agent cannot learn from this text whether the listing is scoped to a session or whether expectedRevision is a consistency check. This is the definition's largest gap.

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?

"List all layers in the scene" gives a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical enumerates exactly which fields come back (id, type, name, visibility), so an agent knows the shape of the result before calling. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as describe_layer as the alternative, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

"Use to discover what exists before editing" gives a genuine when-to-use signal tied to the editing workflow. However, there are no exclusions and no named alternative — an agent must infer on its own that describe_layer is the tool for per-layer detail and that list_assets covers non-layer resources.

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