inspect-layer

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

The description strongly implies read-only behavior via 'inspect' and 'SEE its exact state', and provides detailed output expectations. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, which with no annotations leaves some ambiguity.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the purpose and using a list structure to enumerate covered properties without repeating schema fields.

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's complexity and absence of an output schema, the description provides a thorough account of return contents (transform, effects, masks, markers, source, text) and selection logic, making it self-sufficient for an agent.

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?

The schema already fully documents all six parameters (100% coverage). The description adds a brief note on selection options (compName/compIndex, layerIndex/layerName, active comp) but does not add semantics beyond the schema.

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 deeply inspects one layer and enumerates the exact state elements (type, transform, effects, masks, markers, source, text). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect-comp or list-layer-effects.

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?

It frames the tool as a pre-edit inspection step ('before making precise edits') and specifies that it targets a single layer, selected by comp and layer identifiers. It lacks explicit alternatives/exclusions, so not a 5.

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