list_layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it merely states the action. It does not mention requirements (e.g., composition must exist), behavior when both 'compId' and 'compName' are provided or omitted, or any side effects. The return format and error handling are also absent.

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 is extremely brief but lacks substance. It is front-loaded but does not include enough information to earn its place; the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. A tool description should be concise yet informative—this is under-specified.

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 2 optional parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description should provide context on usage, identification, and return behavior. It does none of these, leaving the agent to guess how to invoke the tool correctly and interpret 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, putting the burden on the free-text description, yet the description does not mention the parameters 'compId' or 'compName' at all. It fails to explain that these are alternative identifiers for the target composition, or how they interact (e.g., precedence, mutual exclusivity).

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 clear verb ('List') and specific resource ('layers'), scoped to 'a composition'. This distinguishes it effectively from sibling tools like 'list_compositions' (which lists compositions) and 'get_layer_info' (which retrieves details of a single layer).

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. For example, it does not explain how it differs from 'get_layer_info' for a single layer or when to use composition identification via 'compId' vs 'compName'. The agent receives no contextual usage cues.

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