list_layers

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action and does not disclose behavioral traits such as output format, ordering, handling of nested layers, or potential side effects. As a read-only operation, the safety profile is inferred but not stated.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, making every word count.

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?

Given the tool has two optional, undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain parameter usage, how the composition is selected, or what the return value looks like, leaving critical gaps for an agent attempting to invoke this 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%, and the description does not explain what compId or compName mean, whether they are alternatives or required, or what happens when both are omitted. With both parameters optional and no clarification, the tool's identification of the target composition is ambiguous.

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 'List all layers in a composition' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool enumerates layers within a composition. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_layer_info (which likely retrieves a single layer's properties) by explicitly stating 'all layers'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any exclusions. The use case is only implied by the tool's name and description, with no explicit context about when choosing list_layers is appropriate (e.g., for overview vs. single-layer details).

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