layer_select

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool selects an active layer, implying a state change, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this affects other layers, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens if the layerId is invalid. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'active' entails, potential side effects, or return values, leaving gaps in understanding how this tool behaves in the context of sibling tools like 'layer_list' or 'object_select'.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'layerId' documented as '선택할 레이어 ID' (layer ID to select). The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '활성 레이어를 선택합니다' (Selects the active layer) clearly states the action (select) and target (layer), but it's vague about what 'active' means in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'object_select' or 'layer_list', which also involve selection operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'object_select' (select objects) and 'layer_list' (list layers), there's no indication of whether this tool is for selecting layers for editing, visibility control, or other purposes, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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