niri_get_layers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only 'List' operation and clarifies the object category, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as potential errors, ordering, or requirements (e.g., running Niri session). The examples add some context but the description is minimal for a tool without annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with the verb 'List' and the resource, followed by helpful parenthetical examples. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 that there are no parameters, an output schema exists, and the purpose is simple listing, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality. The examples clarify the target objects, making the tool self-explanatory. It could be slightly more explicit about what counts as 'open', but the output schema likely addresses this.

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 tool has zero parameters, rendering the schema trivially complete. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0 params, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific information.

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 action (List) and the resource (open Wayland layer-shell surfaces in Niri), with concrete examples (desktop bars, panels, quickshell, notifications) that distinguish it from sibling tools like niri_get_windows. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 clearly communicates the domain (layer-shell surfaces) through examples, which implies when to use this tool versus regular window listing tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the category is distinct enough.

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