debug_dump_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'recursively dump' (indicating traversal) and names the output fields, but does not disclose side effects (is it read-only?), performance impact (deep recursion could be expensive), or output format (structured? raw text?). Basic behavior is clear but important safety and format details are missing.

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 single sentence efficiently communicates purpose, target, and content. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy. However, it could incorporate parameter or usage guidance without becoming verbose; as is, it is concise but slightly under-informative.

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 5 required parameters (none required, but complex identification), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify parameter usage or what the dumped output looks like, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results. The tool's diagnostic nature demands more context.

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?

With schema description coverage only 20% (only maxDepth has a description), the description must compensate for the other 4 parameters. However, it does not explain compId vs compName, layerName vs layerIndex, or how these identify the layer (priority, mutual exclusivity, etc.). The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema names, leaving the agent uncertain about parameter relationships.

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 uses a specific verb ('dump') and resource ('layer's property tree') with clear inclusion list (names, match names, expressions, keyframe counts) and purpose ('diagnostics'). It strongly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_layer_info or list_layers, as no other sibling offers recursive property dumping.

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 mentions 'for diagnostics' implying when to use, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. For example, it could clarify that get_layer_info is preferred for basic layer info, or that this tool is heavy and should be used sparingly. With many sibling inspection tools, this omission is noticeable.

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