cavalry_get_selected_layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core purpose ('Get the currently selected layers') and does not disclose such things as what happens when nothing is selected, whether a connection to Cavalry is required, or whether the returned data is a list of names or objects. This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to predict tool 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, concise sentence that communicates the tool's function without any filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 tool is simple, but the description is minimal. There is no output schema, so the description should ideally convey what 'layers' means (e.g., layer IDs, names, objects) or mention edge cases like an empty selection. The current description is adequate but leaves some ambiguity, so it's a passable but incomplete definition.

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 input schema is empty (zero parameters), and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly does not invent or mention parameters, so it fully aligns with the schema. No extra parameter details are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('currently selected layers') and the scope is distinct from siblings like get_scene_layers. It immediately tells the agent exactly what the tool does, matching the tool name without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and comparison to siblings like get_scene_layers (to get all layers) or select_layers (to modify selection). However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions.

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