motion_list_text_layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists text layers and returns their string and scenenode id, which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not mention prerequisites, error handling, or side effects. The added value is limited to the output fields.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and result with no filler. Every word adds value, making it appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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?

Although the tool has an output schema and is a low-complexity list operation, the required `path` parameter is completely unexplained, leaving a significant gap in usage context. The description does not clarify the nature of the path or how it relates to the tool's siblings, making it incomplete for practical invocation.

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 has one required parameter `path` with no description, and the tool description does not mention `path` at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what the parameter means or how to provide it, leaving the agent without essential information.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resource 'Text-factory layer', while specifying the output fields (current on-screen string, scenenode id). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling `motion_list_layers` by focusing on text layers and explicitly notes the output is 'needed by motion_set_text'.

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 when you need text layer info for motion_set_text, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus `motion_list_layers` or other alternatives. There is no direct comparison or exclusion criteria, so the guidance remains implicit.

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