get_layer_visibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'Get' implies a read, and 'all layers' implies scope including hidden ones, but nothing is said about the return shape, ordering, or whether hidden layers are represented differently.

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?

A single seven-word sentence with zero waste and the resource front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than tight completeness.

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 tool is simple (no params, no nested objects), but with no output schema the description is the only place return values could be explained, and it never says what a 'visibility state' looks like. Adequate to identify the tool, insufficient to predict its response.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('visibility state of all layers'), which is unambiguous and clearly the read counterpart to the sibling set_layer_visible. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the verb/resource pairing makes the distinction obvious.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_full_state, which plausibly also reports layer visibility, or set_layer_visible for mutation. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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