Inspect a layer schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the schemas come from 'pinned V5 definitions' and require 'No network,' reinforcing the static/local nature. It does not, however, describe the return shape or size of the schema payload.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a scoping clause. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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 single-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and where the data comes from. It is nearly complete, with the only gap being the absence of any hint about the returned schema's format or how to use it.

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 0%, so the schema provides only the enum list with no per-value meaning. The description partially compensates by framing the output as either a 'native layer' or 'animation keyframe' schema, which implicitly groups the enum (including Keyframes) into two categories, but it never explains what the individual layer types represent.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return a complete selected native layer or animation keyframe schema.' An agent understands it fetches a schema definition. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from the sibling get_operation_schema, leaving the boundary between the two schema-lookup tools to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With get_operation_schema and preview_operation as siblings, the agent gets no signal about when this layer-schema lookup is the right call versus those other inspection tools.

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