list_vector_shapes

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses that bbox units are pixels and that SVG output is optional. It says nothing about read-only semantics, ordering of returned shapes, pagination, or the output-size cost of requesting SVG for every shape.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, and the key return-field information is front-loaded. But it is a fragment rather than a well-formed statement, and its brevity comes from omitting needed information rather than from efficient editing.

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 listing tool with no output schema, no annotations, and undocumented parameters, the description should at minimum resolve the default-layer behavior and warn about output volume with SVG. Neither is covered, leaving core invocation questions unanswered.

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%, and both parameters are named only in the schema titles. The description hints that shapes belong to a layer and that SVG inclusion is opt-in, but it never explains what a null 'layer' means (active layer? all layers?) or how large include_svg output can become.

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 ('shapes on a vector layer') and the fields returned (name, type, bbox in pixels, optional SVG), which distinguishes it from siblings like remove_vector_shapes or draw_shapes. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb, so the 'list' action is only inferred from the tool name rather than stated.

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 mention of how it relates to list_layers or remove_vector_shapes, and no statement of prerequisites. An agent must guess whether this reads the active layer or an arbitrary one.

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