List layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and adds almost nothing: it doesn't say whether the operation is safe/read-only (only implied by 'List'), whether it returns nested/precomp layers, layer ordering, or the shape of each layer entry. For a listing tool this is a notable gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing context addressed elsewhere.

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 one-parameter read tool this is roughly adequate, but with no output schema the description should have hinted at what a 'layer' entry contains (name, id, type, index) so an agent can chain results into ae_set_layer_transform or ae_add_effect. It is minimum viable, not complete.

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% and the single 'comp' parameter is fully documented as a name-or-id with an active-composition fallback. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (layers of a composition), so an agent immediately knows what it does. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like ae_list_compositions or explain how it relates to the add_*_layer tools, which is the only gap.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note on whether it should be used before mutation tools such as ae_set_layer_transform or ae_add_effect. The only usage hint is implied by the phrase 'of a composition'.

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