ae_get_selected_layers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'returns' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, potential errors, or whether the active comp is required to have a selection. This minimal disclosure is a gap for a tool without annotation safety hints.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the specific return fields. There is no redundant or extraneous content.

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, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and fields. It does not specify the return structure (e.g., array vs. object) or error handling, but given the low complexity, this is a minor omission.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers them (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to describe.

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 specifies the exact action ('Returns'), the resource ('currently selected layers in the active comp'), and the detailed fields ('indices, names, comments, and labels'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like ae_get_active_comp and ae_get_layer_properties by focusing on the selection set.

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 usage is implied: it returns selected layers, so an agent would use it when needing that data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling tools or any exclusions, leaving selection context implicit.

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