design_get_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' correctly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and it discloses what is returned ('all properties and transform'), but says nothing about error behavior for a missing layer, cross-sketch access, or how the default sketch selection resolves.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though it is borderline under-specified rather than optimally sized.

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 two-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, and there is no output schema so describing the return payload is warranted — which it does, if only at a high level ('all properties and transform'). Missing: failure modes and how sketchId defaulting behaves when no sketch is selected.

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 100%, so both parameters (layerId, sketchId with its 'default: selected sketch' note) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that the inspected layer is singular and returns full properties; no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get full details of a single design layer.' The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling design_list_layers, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation is by inference rather than explicit.

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 and no named alternative (design_list_layers, design_get_style). Usage is only implied by the singular scope and the required layerId parameter.

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