get_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies a read operation, but it does not mention side-effect-free behavior, error conditions, required permissions, or what 'stable properties' encompasses.

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 efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It loses a point because it is so brief that it omits context that could be useful, but it is still concise and front-loaded.

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 annotations and no output schema visible, the description alone is insufficient. It lacks behavioral context, relationship to sibling tools, and parameter clarity, making it barely adequate for a tool with only two parameters.

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%, and the description does not mention 'image_id' or 'layer_id' at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's integer types and required flags, failing to compensate for the missing parameter info.

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 operation: 'Return stable properties for a layer/drawable.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it's distinct from sibling tools like 'list_layers' or 'get_image_info'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those tools.

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 'list_layers' or 'get_image_info'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues beyond the plain description.

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