add_layer

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It conveys that the tool adds a layer and returns a success message with the new layer index. It does not cover side effects, authentication, or error scenarios, but it adequately describes the core action and outcome.

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 compact, well-structured docstring with a clear purpose, args list, and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the most important information comes first.

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 with simple inputs and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects. It could be more complete by specifying that the graph must exist or describing the layer-index format, but it is sufficient for most use cases.

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 description explains both parameters beyond the schema: layer_type lists possible values (right-y, top-x, inset, independent). Graph_name is minimally described but sufficient. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential context.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a new layer') and the target resource ('graph'), with examples of layer types. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_second_y_axis, which are more 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 lists valid layer types, giving agents a hint for correct usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., add_second_y_axis) or mention prerequisites like graph existence.

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