ae_get_layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get layer details' clearly implies a read-only operation and lists the information categories returned, which is useful. However, it does not mention failure behavior, ambiguity handling beyond the brief index fallback, or what 'concise' versus 'detailed' actually changes.

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 single efficient sentence with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the only added guidance earns its place.

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 simple getter with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the key selection precedence. The response_format parameter is underspecified semantically, but the schema enum values 'concise' and 'detailed' provide enough surface meaning.

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 80%, so the baseline is already adequate. The description adds a useful decision rule—prefer layer_name and fall back to layer_index when names collide—which clarifies intent beyond the schema's individual property descriptions.

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 ('Get'), resource ('layer'), and content scope ('transforms, timing, effects'), making the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ae_get_composition or ae_list_effects, but the resource and verb are specific enough to distinguish it.

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 only guidance is intra-tool parameter selection: 'Prefer layer_name; use layer_index if names collide.' No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ae_get_composition, ae_list_effects, or mutation tools like ae_set_layer_properties.

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