get_layer_info

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

With no annotations, the description must convey side-effect behavior. The verb 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that or mention any permissions or limitations. A user could reasonably infer no side effects, but it's not guaranteed.

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 that leads with the verb 'Get' and the resource. It is front-loaded and does not waste words, though it is arguably too brief to be fully useful.

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 is incomplete for a retrieval tool: it does not mention what information is returned, the format of the output, or any error conditions (e.g., missing layer or invalid index). Without an output schema or further detail, a caller cannot predict the tool's results.

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 description does not explain any of the four parameters (compId, compName, layerName, layerIndex). It doesn't clarify how to specify the layer (by name vs. index) or that a composition must be identified. Since the schema provides no descriptions either, the user is left guessing about required inputs and their combinations.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('a layer'), which distinguishes it from the many modifying layer tools in the sibling list. However, it lacks specifics on what 'detailed information' entails.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is appropriate for retrieving metadata, or contrast with other getters like 'get_composition_info' or 'list_layers'. No context or prerequisites are given.

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