list-layer-effects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It mentions 'optional recursive property details,' hinting at nested property inclusion, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose performance implications of deep recursion, output format, or error handling. The verb 'List' suggests a safe read operation, but the description lacks explicit reassurance.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, with no wasted words. It is concise and structurally effective.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly minimal. It clearly communicates the tool's purpose but does not elaborate on return values, edge cases, or practical examples. For a list operation, it is adequate but leaves room for more instructional context.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that 'optional recursive property details' are available, which loosely maps to includeProperties and maxDepth, but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema's explicit parameter descriptions.

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 lists effects on a specific layer, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('effects on a layer'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-available-effects, which lists all effects in the application, by scoping to a layer within a composition.

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 implies usage for inspecting a layer's effects but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use list-available-effects or inspect-layer. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, so it relies on the user to infer context.

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