ps_duplicate_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that a copy is generated from the active layer, which implies the original remains intact, but it does not mention side effects such as the position of the copy, whether it becomes the active layer, or naming behavior.

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 short sentence that contains the essential action, target, and outcome. There is no filler, and the key information is 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?

For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately communicates the core operation and result. It is slightly light on behavioral side effects, but the simple nature of duplicating a layer makes the description largely sufficient.

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, so the description cannot add parameter meaning beyond the schema. Per the calibration baseline, 0 params earns a 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 (复制/duplicate), a clear resource (当前活动图层/current active layer), and the result (生成副本/creates a copy). This distinguishes it from sibling operations like ps_add_layer or ps_delete_layer without any ambiguity.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are mentioned. However, the usage is clearly implied: this tool is for duplicating the currently active layer, which a competent agent can infer from the action and resource.

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