Get Layers

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds only the 'tree' output shape, which is useful but thin; with no output schema it could have disclosed the node shape, depth, or handling of hidden/locked layers.

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, which is efficient. It is arguably under-specified rather than concise, but nothing in the text wastes the agent's attention.

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 simple read-only tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient. The remaining gap is the return structure: with no output schema, 'as a tree' does not tell the agent what fields a layer node contains or how include_items/include_sublayers change the shape.

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 coordinate_system parameter is documented in exceptional detail in the schema (enums, auto-detection rule, axis orientation, cross-reference to get_document_info). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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 clear verb and resource ('Get layer structure') plus the output shape ('as a tree'), so the agent knows it returns a hierarchical view rather than a flat list. It does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as get_document_structure, get_groups, or manage_layers, leaving the choice to inference.

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 get_document_structure, get_groups, or manage_layers, and no mention of prerequisites or conditions. The only implied usage is 'when you need layer structure', which the name already conveys.

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