layers

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

The description directly contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint: true by stating the tool can 'change which layers are shown', which implies write operations. No other behavioral context (e.g., reversibility, required permissions) is provided to resolve this conflict.

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 single sentence is front-loaded, wastes no words, and packs in the key capabilities. It could be slightly clearer about the two modes but is appropriately concise.

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 tool that can mutate layer visibility, the description is incomplete given the contradictory annotations. It fails to clarify side effects, reversibility, or how the readOnlyHint applies, leaving the agent with a misleading signal about safety.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the names and action parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb+resource: 'List layers' or 'change which layers are shown', with concrete details (visibility, colour, entity count). It clearly distinguishes listing from modifying, but does not reference any sibling tool or alternative.

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 implies two main usage modes (listing and changing visibility), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as cad_command or screen_settings. The action enum in the schema suggests contexts but the description itself does not.

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