rhino_set_current_layer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's action of setting the current layer is consistent with these annotations and adds no contradiction. However, it does not go beyond the annotations to provide additional behavioral context such as what happens if the layer does not exist, whether the operation fails silently, or any side effects. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 reflects that the description adds minimal value but does not mislead.

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 sentence with no superfluous words, achieving high conciseness. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so brief that it omits any additional structure or context that could aid usability, but since it is directly readable and not bloated, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 with one parameter, but the description is incomplete for confident invocation. It does not mention error behavior, whether the layer must already exist, or any return value (though an output schema exists, it is not shown). More importantly, it lacks any context about when this operation is appropriate relative to sibling tools. Given the existence of many related tools, the description fails to provide sufficient situational guidance for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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 schema has one parameter 'name' with a description 'Layer name to make current', which already provides direct semantics. However, the tool description itself does not elaborate on this parameter at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries no burden to explain parameters, but the criterion states that low coverage (<50%) requires the description to compensate. Here it does not, so the description adds no value beyond the schema. The single parameter is self-documenting in the schema, but the tool description fails to provide any additional guidance on its usage.

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 says 'Set the active/current layer.' This states a clear verb (set) and resource (current/active layer). It is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rhino_set_layer, though the name itself conveys the distinction. The description adds a clarifying term 'active/current' that helps but is not accompanied by an explicit comparison to 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description solely states what it does, with no mention of when it is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or which sibling tools are better for other scenarios. With numerous layer-related tools (rhino_set_layer, rhino_create_layer, rhino_set_layer_visibility), the absence of any usage context leaves the agent to infer from the name alone.

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