document_getLayers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and operates on the current MOHO document. However, it does not disclose return format, behavior with empty documents, or any side effects. For a simple get, this is acceptable but sparse.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and zero wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what is returned (a list of all top-level layers) and the scope (current MOHO document). It could mention the return structure, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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 no parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description naturally needs to explain nothing about parameters. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 clearly states the tool gets a list of all top-level layers in the current MOHO document. The verb 'Get' is specific, the resource is precise, and 'top-level' distinguishes it from sibling tools like layer_getChildren which retrieve nested layers.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this when you need top-level layers. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like layer_getChildren for nested layers. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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