list_layers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a genuinely useful behavioral detail — children are ordered bottom-to-top — and that the active layer id is included, but it says nothing about ordering of top-level layers, failure behavior with no open document, or whether the tree is flat or nested.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the primary return value and appends the secondary one in parentheses. No filler words.

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, the description should more fully characterize the returned structure (names vs ids, nesting shape, node count), which it only partially does. It is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about how to parse the result.

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 the schema cannot add semantic value and there is nothing for the description to compensate for; baseline 4 applies.

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 precisely ('layer tree of the active document') plus the secondary return value (active layer id). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_vector_shapes or list_keyframes, though it does not explicitly contrast with document_info.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite stated (e.g. that a document must be open and active), and no reference to alternative tools such as document_info or list_vector_shapes for other inspection needs.

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