layer_getChildren

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does ('Get child layers') without disclosing return format, whether it returns all descendants or just immediate children, error behavior for non-group layers, or any ordering. This is a minimal behavioral 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, 'Get child layers of a group layer', with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it doesn't specify the returned data structure (e.g., an array of layer objects), whether it recurses into nested groups, or what happens for invalid or non-group layerId values. More context could be provided.

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 input schema already provides a description for layerId ('The numeric ID of the parent group layer') with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'child layers' and the qualifier 'of a group layer', clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like layer_getProperties or layer_getBones, which target different aspects of a layer.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tool references are given. The intended use is only implied by the description—use it to retrieve children of a group layer—but there is no context on when to prefer this over related tools.

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