cavalry_select_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 only says 'select', which is ambiguous—it does not clarify whether this changes the current selection, returns a value, or how it handles invalid layer IDs. This lack of detail is a significant gap.

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, direct sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the purpose.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation adequately. However, it omits details about return values, edge cases like invalid IDs, or whether previous selections are replaced, which an agent would need for confident invocation. The lack of annotations and output schema makes this a moderate gap.

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 parameter 'layerIds' is fully described in the schema as 'Array of layer IDs to select', and the tool description adds no additional semantics beyond that. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 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 states the action ('Select'), the resource ('layers in Cavalry'), and the method ('by their IDs'). It is clear and specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cavalry_get_selected_layers (which reads the current selection) and cavalry_get_scene_layers (which lists layers), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 related tools such as cavalry_get_selected_layers or cavalry_set_attribute. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative approaches, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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