get_cop_layer

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does very little: 'Get' implies a read, but there is no statement about the return format, whether a render/cook must exist first, permission or context requirements, or any limits. For a data-extraction tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves major gaps.

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 short and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence and parameters after. The 'Args:' list is boilerplate rather than wasteful prose, so the text is efficient, though it is under-specified rather than truly concise.

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?

For a read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least characterize what 'layer data' contains, but it never says (planes? pixels? channels?). An agent can invoke it, but cannot predict or interpret the result, leaving the definition incomplete for its complexity.

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%, so nothing in the schema explains the parameters, and the description only restates their titles ('Path to the COP node', 'Output connector index'). 'Output connector index' adds a little meaning to output_index, but valid ranges, the meaning of the default 0, and node_path format are never given.

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 and resource: 'Get image layer data from a COP node.' This is far more informative than the bare name and distinguishes it loosely from neighbouring COP readers like get_cop_geometry and get_cop_vdb by naming 'image layer data'. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or explain what a 'layer' is in this context.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. With several other COP readers available (get_cop_info, get_cop_geometry, get_cop_vdb), an agent has to guess which one returns image layer data. Only the parameter list is provided.

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