Get layer info

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds a real behavioral fact: the call fails if the comp or layer isn't found. It does not mention that 'full info' on a heavy layer may be a large payload, nor any cost/size guidance, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the returned payload followed by the failure condition and the sibling routing. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, so an agent knows what to expect. Error behavior and alternatives are also covered, leaving no meaningful gap for a two-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents the id-or-name duality for both comp and layer, including the 'active' default. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 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 and resource ("Full info for one layer") and then enumerates exactly what is included — switches, timing, parent, source, transforms, effects, masks, markers, text, animated/expression properties. This level of specificity makes it immediately distinguishable from the info-gathering siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to three named alternatives with the condition that selects each: ae_get_comp_info for all layers in brief, ae_get_properties for the full property tree, ae_get_layer_bounds for the on-screen box. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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