get_copper_layer_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses no behavioral traits such as whether the tool reads from the current board, requires a valid board, or any performance implications. The description is too terse for full 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 sentence that is perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary and the structure is clear.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema (though not shown), the description is nearly complete. It could mention that it returns an integer count, but the output schema likely covers that. Still, minimal additional context would be beneficial for an AI agent.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate because the description is sufficient given the absence of parameters.

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 'Get number of copper layers' clearly states the tool's verb (get) and resource (number of copper layers), and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_layer_list (which returns a list) and get_stackup (which may include copper layer details).

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 such as get_layer_list or get_stackup. For a simple query tool, minimal guidance is acceptable, but the complete absence reduces clarity for an AI agent deciding between tools.

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