List Properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by specifying the returned data shape (including keyframe counts and expressions), which matters since there is no output schema, though it omits depth/traversal cost or result-size behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loading what is returned before the usage note. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 read-only nature is covered by annotations and the return fields are partially described, but with five parameters at 20% schema coverage and a required layer_id documented nowhere, an agent lacks enough detail on traversal scope (depth, time, group_path) to call this precisely.

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 only 20% and the description contributes nothing about parameters: layer_id (required), time, depth and group_path are all left unexplained in both places. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('walk') and resource ('a layer's property tree') and enumerates exactly what is returned (names, match names, value types, values, keyframe counts, expressions). This clearly differentiates it from sibling readers like get_layer or get_keyframes.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('to find property paths before set_property / set_keyframes'), naming the downstream tools it feeds. It does not state exclusions or when to prefer an alternative reader, so it stops short of a 5.

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