eda_pcb_layer_get_all_layers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by showing the async signature Promise<Array<IPCB_LayerItem>> and stating that all layers' detailed properties are returned. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it mention error conditions or window applicability.

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 short and front-loaded with the signature, but it is redundant: '获取所有图层的详细属性' and 'returns: 所有图层的详细属性' say essentially the same thing. A single concise sentence would be more effective.

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 zero-required-parameter getter, the invocation path is fairly clear. However, there is no output schema, and the description only says the result contains 'detailed properties' without enumerating IPCB_LayerItem fields, so an agent has limited information about the shape it will need to consume.

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 schema already documents both parameters generically, so the description does not need to repeat them. The signature `getAllLayers()` implies no underlying API arguments, which is helpful, but the description does not clarify how `args` should be passed or whether it must be an empty array, leaving some ambiguity.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: '获取所有图层的详细属性' (get detailed properties of all layers) and gives the return type. The word 'all' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like eda_pcb_layer_get_current_layer, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to prefer this tool over related layer tools such as get_current_layer, get_the_number_of_copper_layers, or get_current_physical_stacking_configuration, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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