rhino_cmd_layer_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and 'Return a list' does imply a read-only query with a clear scope ('all layer names'). It does not add context about ordering, inclusion of hidden/empty layers, or behavior with no layers, but for a zero-argument read operation this is minimally adequate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence communicates the resource and scope with no filler. Every word 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 no-argument list operation, 'all layer names in the document' fully specifies what the tool returns, and the output schema covers the return structure. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 is empty ({}) and there are zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter details; per the zero-parameter baseline this is a 4. There is no parameter information to be missed.

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 states a specific action ('Return') and a precise resource ('a list of all layer names in the document'), so an agent knows what data it receives. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the near-identical sibling rhino_layer_list, so it falls short of full sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as rhino_layer_list, rhino_layer_count, or rhino_block_list. The only implied usage is that it returns layer names, but no exclusions or when-not conditions are stated.

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