Layer info

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries extra weight and delivers: it warns the full tree is often 100KB+ per comp and that includeProperties=false skips the property walk entirely. This is actionable performance/cost context beyond the structured fields. It does not cover auth or instance-resolution behavior, which the schema fields handle instead.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the returned content and then the scoping/size guidance; each clause carries information. Slightly long, but nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned structure, the size expectation, and the detail/includeProperties downgrades. Combined with 100% parameter coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the instance-resolution nuance and no explicit sibling routing leave minor gaps.

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% and every parameter is already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's layerIndex sentence largely restates the schema's anyOf (single index, array, 'all'), though it adds the audit rationale for batching. It adds little semantic detail the schema lacks.

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+resource with an explicit enumeration of what is returned (transform, effects, masks, text, shape contents, keyframes with interpolation names). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ae_comp_info or ae_project_info. An agent can tell exactly what this call yields without opening the schema.

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?

Gives real usage direction: use detail:'summary' to start audits, and 'all' to audit a whole comp in one round trip. It explains the flag trade-offs but never names or excludes a sibling tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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