debug_dump_layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the recursive behavior and the specific data included (names, match names, expressions, keyframe counts), which gives useful insight into what to expect. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but 'dump' and 'diagnostics' imply a non-destructive inspection.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and content without any wasted words. It is concise and to the point.

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?

The description adequately covers what the tool does and its diagnostic purpose, but with five parameters and no output schema, it leaves gaps: layer selection is ambiguous (multiple identifiers), and there is no mention of potential large output or performance implications. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 only 20% (maxDepth has a description), and the description does not compensate for the other parameters. It does not explain how compId, compName, layerName, or layerIndex are used for layer selection, their precedence, or why none are required. This leaves significant ambiguity in invoking the tool.

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 function: 'Recursively dump a layer's property tree' with specific contents (names, match names, expressions, keyframe counts) and purpose (diagnostics). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_layer_info or get_expression by focusing on a comprehensive recursive dump.

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 phrase 'for diagnostics' provides clear context for when to use this tool, implying it is for debugging or inspection rather than normal querying. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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