Layer info

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing what data is returned and how the includeProperties flag affects the traversal. It also discloses the batching behavior for multiple layers, giving agents a clear picture of the call's scope and performance traits.

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 exceptionally compact—two sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and then provide actionable parameter guidance. Every phrase earns its place without redundant specification.

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 read-only nature and the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what information is returned and how to request bulk or partial data. It leaves no major gaps for a tool of this 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?

While the schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, the tool description enriches the layerIndex semantics by emphasizing the single-call batching and the includeProperties rationale ('skip the property tree walk'). This adds practical meaning beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 clearly states the tool's function with 'Full layer info' and a specific list of contents (transform, effects, masks, text, shape contents, keyframes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ae_comp_info and ae_project_info by explicitly targeting layers.

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 clear context for use, highlighting the ability to pass multiple indices or 'all' for auditing a whole comp in one call. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives among the listed siblings, so it stops short of a full exclusionary guide.

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