list_layers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral details: the filter also matches XREF-renamed layers, and color is authoritative over lineweight for print thickness. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how limit behaves, or whether the list is scoped to the active drawing.

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 succinct and front-loaded. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second sentence adds relevant domain insight. No wasted words.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the main output and filter nuance, but it omits details about the limit parameter and does not explicitly state that layers belong to the active drawing. Given the tool's simplicity and output schema, this is acceptable.

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 provides no descriptions for 'limit' or 'filter'. The description partially compensates by explaining that the filter matches layer names including XREF-renamed ones, but it does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. With 0% schema coverage, more parameter guidance would be beneficial.

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 this tool returns a layer table with ACI color, line type, and state. It identifies the resource (layers) and the specific fields, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_blocks or list_references.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated. The description provides domain context (color importance via CTB) and filter behavior for XREF-renamed layers, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions.

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