List Test Layers

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing the tool as safe and read-only. The description adds context about the taxonomy purpose but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey. This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 exceptionally concise with three sentences across two paragraphs. Every sentence adds value: first states action, second explains purpose, third gives usage guidance. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It adequately explains the taxonomy concept and provides sufficient context for using the tool. With annotations and output schema, the description is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, only referencing output (layer IDs and names). Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters well.

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 tool lists test layers to discover available taxonomy. It explains the purpose (categorizing test cases) and explicitly notes it is used to find layer IDs and names before creating or updating test cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_test_layer, update_test_layer, and list_test_layer_schemas.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to find layer IDs and names before creating or updating test cases,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not specify when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling set includes related tools, making the usage guidance clear enough.

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