Get Document Structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose line — nothing about output size on large documents, truncation, or cost of traversing deep trees.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably terse for a tool that returns a nested document tree and could use one clause about scope.

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 read-only enumeration tool the description is minimally adequate. No output schema exists, so the description could have clarified the returned tree shape, but the absence of behavioral gaps is smaller given the annotations and full parameter coverage.

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% and the parameter docs are detailed (depth semantics, artboard index, coordinate systems with an informative get_document_info pointer). The description adds nothing about parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (tree structure of layers, groups, and objects), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_layers, get_groups, or get_document_info, leaving the agent to infer that this tool returns the combined hierarchy.

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 offers no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. With siblings such as get_layers, get_groups, and find_objects available, an agent gets no signal about when this combined tree view is preferable.

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