get_layers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Retrieve') but doesn't describe what 'Retrieve' entails—e.g., whether it returns a list of layer names, full layer objects, or metadata; if it's read-only (implied but not explicit); or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 complexity (a read operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what 'Retrieve' returns (e.g., a list, objects, or metadata), which is critical for an agent to use the tool effectively. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by explaining return values, but it fails to do so.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required by not mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools, as there's no parameter semantics to explain beyond what's already clear.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('all layers in the current project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_layer_features' (which might retrieve specific features within layers) or 'get_project_info' (which might include layers among other project metadata), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for listing layers versus getting detailed layer data (compared to 'get_layer_features') or if it's specific to the current project context (versus tools like 'load_project' that might change projects). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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