List all layers in the current 3ds Max scene to review child counts and hidden/frozen states, helping you organize large scenes.
列出场景所有层及其子对象数量、隐藏/冻结状态。用层来组织大型场景是最可靠的做法。 [English] List every scene layer with its child count and hidden/frozen state. Layers are the most reliable way to organise a large scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific output fields (child count, hidden/frozen state) but doesn't disclose any behavioral nuances like sort order, whether empty layers are included, or whether nested layers are recursive. For a simple read tool this is acceptable but not exceptional.
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 core information is contained in one concise sentence, front-loaded with the actual purpose. The description is duplicated in Chinese and English, and the bolded tagline about layers being reliable is not necessary for invoking the tool, adding minor redundancy. Overall it's still compact and scannable.
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 parameterless read-only tool, the description provides enough detail: the operation (list), the target (scene layers), and the returned information (child count, hidden/frozen state). Annotations cover safety. No output schema exists, but the description adequately conveys the return contents. There is no missing information an agent would need to call it.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any missing parameter documentation.
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 scene layer with its child count and hidden/frozen state." This clearly identifies what the tool does and what data it returns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_layer or set_layer_properties, which are mutation operations.
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 its usage — when you need an overview of layers, call this tool. However, it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives, such as get_hierarchy or list_objects, nor does it mention exclusions. The motivational note about layers being reliable is not actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.