inspect-layer

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 transparency. It details the information returned (type, enabled, properties, effects, masks, etc.), implying a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, but the context 'SEE its exact state' suggests inspection. No contradictions, but lacks explicit behavioral traits like rate limits or security requirements.

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 paragraph that packs a lot of information without fluff. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's output and usage. However, it could be better structured with bullet points for readability, especially given the long list of returned properties.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description comprehensively lists what the tool returns: type, enabled state, in/out points, transform properties with keyframes, effects, masks, markers, source, and text details. It also covers parameters for keyframe limits. Missing details on error handling (e.g., if layer not found) but overall complete for a read-only inspection 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context on how to use the parameters (e.g., 'Select the comp by compName/compIndex (or active comp) and the layer by layerIndex or layerName') and explains defaults for maxKeyframes and includeKeyframes. This goes slightly beyond the schema but does not add substantial new meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Deeply inspect ONE layer' to see its exact state before making edits. It specifies the resource (a single layer) and the action (inspect). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'inspect-comp' which inspects a composition, not a layer.

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 description indicates when to use the tool ('before making precise edits') and provides guidance on selecting the comp and layer via compName/compIndex and layerIndex/layerName. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternative inspection tools like 'inspect-comp' or 'list-layer-effects'.

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