layer

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, which is consistent with the mutating operations listed. The description adds operation-specific data fields but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or prerequisites. It covers the basic behavior but not deeper context like permissions or reversibility.

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 well-structured with a brief intro and a clean bullet list of operations. Every line communicates meaningful information without redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers all operations and their data parameters, which is essential for this multi-operation tool. Since an output schema exists, return value details are not required. However, it lacks any mention of error handling, side effects, or the purpose of include_screenshot, leaving minor gaps for a complete understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by defining the expected 'data' object for each operation (e.g., create: {name, color?, linetype?}, set_current: {name}). It also clarifies that 'operation' accepts the listed values, making the schema far more usable.

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 'Layer creation and management' and enumerates eight specific operations (list, create, set_current, etc.) with a verb and resource. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'entity' or 'block'.

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 description implies usage for layer operations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools. The operation list gives context, but the 'when-to-use' guidance is only implicit.

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