get_layers

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool returns a list of layer objects and provides an example, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential errors, required board state, or performance implications. The disclosure is adequate but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and an example. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every part adds value. No superfluous text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, list output), the description is fairly complete. It explains the return fields and provides an example. However, it does not specify ordering, filtering, or behavior when no board is loaded, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no additional parameter meaning since none exist, but it correctly describes the output fields.

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 the tool's purpose: 'List all PCB layers with their properties.' It specifies the resource ('PCB layers') and the action ('list'), and differentiates from siblings like 'list_footprints' by focusing uniquely on layers. The example further clarifies the output structure.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_board_info' or 'list_nets'. The description lacks any mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, which is a notable gap given the number of sibling tools.

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