emptysock_layer_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return reference documentation' clearly indicates a read-only information-retrieval operation with no side effects weeds, and the function list further sets expectations about the content. It does not describe the format or size of the returned documentation, but the behavior itself is clear.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the verb ('Return'), the object ('reference documentation'), and the exact scope (EmptySock LayerSystem APIs). No redundant text or repetition of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter, read-only documentation tool, the description tells an agent what it will get and which APIs are covered. It stops short of describing the result layout or how the reference material is presented, but nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking such a simple tool.

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 takes zero parameters)Skip, so the schema already fully describes the input surface (none). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 states a specific action ('Return reference documentation') and a precise subject (EmptySock LayerSystem API) with the exact list of covered functions (setVisible, setParallax, etc.). It is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools, which perform scene/save/physics operations rather than returning API reference material.

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 purpose implicitly tells an agent when this tool is useful — when EmptySock layer API reference documentation is needed — and the sibling context makes alternatives obvious. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over, say, gms2_inspect_project or other documentation-capable siblings, and no exclusions are stated.

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