Find Layer

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral details (supports fnmatch wildcards and substring matching) beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose case sensitivity or behavior on no match, but for a simple search tool this is acceptable.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The key information (pattern matching types) is front-loaded and directly actionable. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool has only one parameter and an output schema is present, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (pattern matching). It does not explain the return value structure, but that is the responsibility of the output schema. A minor gap is the absence of explicit mention that multiple layers can be returned.

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 has 0% description coverage for the parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds crucial semantic context: the parameter supports fnmatch wildcards and substring matching, which transforms a generic 'name_pattern' string into a specific pattern-matching syntax.

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 finds layers by name pattern, with specific methods (fnmatch wildcards, substring matching). It is a specific verb+resource combination that naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_layers' which likely return all 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?

The description implies usage for pattern-based layer search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_layers' or 'get_active_layer'. No exclusion criteria or when-not guidance is provided.

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