Layer info

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral nuance beyond that: the batch round-trip efficiency ('auditing a whole comp is one call') and the optional 'property tree walk' that can be skipped via includeProperties=false. No contradictions with annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences. The primary purpose and content list are front-loaded, followed by the most impactful usage note (batch indices) and the optional flag. Zero filler.

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-only layer inspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the return content categories and explains the includeProperties control. It does not describe the exact return structure, but given the schema's clarity and the read-only annotation, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the layerIndex array/'all' behavior already in the schema and adds the property tree walk context, but this is more behavioral than parameter-specific. It does not add meaning beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Full layer info') with a clear resource (layer) and enumerates the content areas (transform, effects, masks, text, shape contents, keyframes). It naturally differentiates from sibling tools like ae_comp_info and ae_project_info, which target different resources.

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 gives concrete usage context: layerIndex accepts a single index, an array, or 'all', enabling whole-comp auditing in one call. It also explains the includeProperties toggle. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it; the sibling distinction is implied but not stated.

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