ecamm_list_overlays

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: a hard platform limitation (only the current scene is reportable) and the fact that visibility state is included in the result. It does not describe ordering or whether hidden overlays are excluded, which keeps it below a 5.

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 fragment with no filler; the scoping constraint is in parentheses right where the reader needs it. The phrasing is telegraphic rather than a full sentence, which is efficient but slightly less readable than a clean clause would be.

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 tool with no output schema, an agent needs the scope, the subject, and the returned attribute, all of which are present. The one remaining gap is result shape (array vs object, hidden overlays included or not), which is modest for a tool this simple.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on arguments.

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 names the resource (overlays), the scope (CURRENT scene, capitalized for emphasis), and the payload attribute (visibility), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with a sibling like ecamm_set_overlay or ecamm_list, leaving the read-vs-write distinction to the tool name and annotations.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the parenthetical 'Ecamm cannot report other scenes' warns the agent that this is the only scene it can inspect, which is a useful boundary. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for overlay data in other scenes.

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