get_grab_layers

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

The annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds important context beyond that: permission values in the snapshot are advisory display labels only and are not enforced. This is a meaningful behavioral disclaimer that prevents misuse.

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 front-loaded sentences, no filler. The first states the action and resource; the second adds the permission caveat that an agent genuinely needs. 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?

For a one-optional-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description gives the essential return concept ('layer-tree snapshot') and the caveat about authoritative semantics. A minor gap is not describing failure behavior when no active local grab session exists.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional page parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The tool description does not need to add param semantics but does not go beyond the schema either.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and defines a clear resource: the latest non-mutating layer-tree snapshot from the active local grab session. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_grabbed_elements and move_grab_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?

It provides clear when-to-use context: when the agent needs the most recent layer-tree snapshot from the active local grab session. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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