cavalry_get_scene_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 operation is a read ('Get a list') and reveals the output fields ('IDs and types'), but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., whether a scene must be open), error behavior, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks explicit safety assertions.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no filler words. It conveys exactly what is needed without redundancy.

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?

The description explains the return value ('IDs and types') and covers the core purpose. It does not mention potential failure conditions or assumptions about the 'current scene', but for a simple read-only list tool with zero parameters, this is reasonably complete. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit mention of returned fields.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. With no params to document, this dimension is well-handled by the schema, and the description doesn't obscure anything.

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 action 'Get a list of all layers in the current Cavalry scene' and specifies the return content ('with their IDs and types'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cavalry_get_selected_layers and cavalry_get_composition_info by explicitly covering all layers.

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 implies usage: you'd call this when you need all layers and their IDs/types. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives such as cavalry_get_selected_layers. The context is clear from the sibling names, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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