get_layer_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific authorization, whether it modifies state, or what response format to expect. For a tool that retrieves 'detailed information', the lack of behavioral context is a significant 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be front-loaded with more critical context (like prerequisite or parameter guidance) without adding length. The brevity is acceptable but misses opportunities.

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 zero annotations, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, the description must provide comprehensive guidance. It does not explain the return value, what 'detailed information' includes, any prerequisite layer state, or how the four parameters interact. This is a rich tool ecosystem (many sibling tools) where clarity about what this tool provides vs alternatives is critical, and the description falls short.

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%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (compId, compName, layerName, layerIndex) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain the meaning of these parameters, their relationships (e.g., whether compId and compName are alternatives), or how to use them correctly. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states 'Get detailed information about a layer', which uses a clear verb ('get') and resource ('information about a layer'). However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like list_layers, get_comp_report, or debug_dump_layer. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity about what 'detailed information' includes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_layers, get_composition_info, or debug_dump_layer. The description provides no context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a composition with layers), exclusions, or expected scenarios. This leaves the agent to guess when get_layer_info is appropriate.

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