layer_list

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 it retrieves lists, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like whether it returns all layers at once, if there's pagination, error conditions, or performance considerations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a simple list tool, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide full context for reliable agent use without additional inference.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional value is required, but it also doesn't compensate for any gaps since none exist.

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 '모든 레이어 목록을 조회합니다' (Retrieves all layer lists) clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (layer lists). It distinguishes from siblings like layer_create, layer_delete, or layer_select by focusing on listing rather than modifying or selecting specific layers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from object_list, which might list objects rather than layers, leaving slight 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing layers to exist, or compare to other list-related tools like object_list or history_list. Without such context, users must infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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