Get Layers

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

The description adds value beyond the `readOnlyHint` annotation by detailing the return content (IDs, names, types, visibility, type-specific info) and including `total_count`. However, it does not disclose any potential performance implications or other behavioral traits, so it meets the baseline but does not excel.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. The first sentence captures the core purpose, and the second adds necessary pagination details. No redundant or extraneous text. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple read-only list tool with an output schema (not shown), the description provides sufficient context about what is returned and pagination. It does not cover error conditions or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations, it is mostly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only states 'Use limit/offset for pagination', which does not explain the meaning or constraints of the parameters (e.g., default values, maximum values). The schema already provides defaults, but the description does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond that.

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 lists layers in the current project and specifies the returned fields (IDs, names, types, visibility, type-specific info). It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling `get_layer_tree` which provides a hierarchical view, so it loses a point for lack of sibling differentiation.

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 mentions using limit/offset for pagination, which is a usage guideline, but it does not provide any context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_layer_tree` or what prerequisites exist (e.g., must have a project open). It gives partial guidance but lacks exclusions or comparisons.

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