rhino_layer_get_current

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Return the name' clearly indicates a read-only operation, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as what happens when no layers exist or whether the document is modified. For this simple getter the core behavior is stated, but there is room for more context.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object clearly and earns its place entirely.

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 zero parameters, a clear output schema, and a simple getter operation, the description is fully adequate. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameter semantics because there are none; 'current (active) layer' provides enough context for the expected result.

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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('name of the current (active) layer'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like rhino_layer_list (which lists layers) and rhino_layer_set_current (which changes the current 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?

The description gives clear context: use this when you need the name of the currently active layer. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple getter the intended use is unambiguous given the tool name and siblings.

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