get_mask_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify what information is returned (e.g., mask properties, count, or details), potential errors, or any side effects. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and understand the core functionality.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves information. It does not specify what 'information' includes (e.g., mask properties, types, or counts), leaving the agent uncertain about the return format. For a read operation with no structured output, more detail is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'compId', 'layerIndex', and 'maskIndex'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Thus, it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter details.

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 'Get information about masks on a layer' clearly states the verb ('Get information') and resource ('masks on a layer'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_layer_info' or 'get_composition_info' that might also retrieve mask-related data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling list includes tools like 'get_layer_info' and 'get_composition_info' that might overlap in functionality, the absence of explicit usage context or exclusions is a significant gap, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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