get_cop_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: the string "get" weakly implies a read, but there is no statement about data volume, return format, whether a node must be cooked first, or whether reading has side effects. For a tool that may return large image buffers, the absence of any disclosure is a real gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted, but there is too little content to be well-structured. It is under-specified rather than concise, since the one sentence carries no scope, format, or parameter information.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter description coverage, the description is the agent's only source of behavioral information — and it provides one ambiguous sentence. It does not say what "layer data" contains or how output_index affects the result, which is inadequate for a 2-parameter data-retrieval 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does not. "from a COP node" loosely gestures at node_path, but output_index — the non-obvious parameter controlling which output of a multi-output node is read — is never mentioned or explained anywhere. The description adds essentially no meaning beyond the bare property names.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get image layer data from a COP node"), and the word "image" distinguishes it from siblings like get_cop_geometry and get_cop_vdb. However, "layer data" is ambiguous — it could mean pixel buffers, metadata, or plane descriptors — so an agent cannot predict what it actually receives. Clearer than a tautology but not fully specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_cop_geometry, get_cop_info, or get_cop_vdb, all of which live in the same COP namespace. The description supplies no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions; the agent must infer selection from name similarity alone.

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