overlay_ls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the ordering (bottom of stack first), the error behavior when a stack cannot resolve (returns overlays_error beside stored records), and the purpose of carrying position/lane/span. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand edge cases.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function and ordering. The second sentence adds essential detail about error handling and the data carried. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only listing tool. It explains ordering, data carried, and error behavior. The output schema exists, so return values don't need to be described. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating when to prefer this over overlay_rm or overlay_add, but the read-only nature and listing purpose are clear from annotations and description.

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 single optional 'path' parameter. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, but it does explain the context of the returned data (position, lane, span) which indirectly clarifies what the tool operates on. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 and resource: list every overlay, bottom of the stack first, with where each plays now. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like overlay_add and overlay_rm by focusing on listing, and it explains the ordering and the data carried per overlay. This is clear and specific.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to see all overlays and their positions, lanes, and timeline spans. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of listing vs. adding/removing is clear from the sibling names and the description's focus on enumeration. It could be stronger with an explicit 'use this instead of overlay_rm when you need to inspect before removing' but the context is sufficient.

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