Inspect a composition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no side-effect disclosure is needed. The description adds useful scope detail about what the read includes, but it does not describe output format, pagination, size limits, or any other behavioral trait beyond the annotation.

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 sentences with no filler. The operation and scope are front-loaded, and the usage context ('before editing anything') is placed at the end without disrupting the core message.

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 read-only inspection tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. It lacks return-structure details, but the schema and annotations cover the remaining essentials.

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%, with both parameters (comp and detail) fully documented, including defaults and enum values. The description reiterates the overall purpose but adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a concrete operation ('Read a composition's settings and its layer stack') and enumerates its scope (transform, effects, keyframed/expression-driven properties). This clearly distinguishes it from edit/set/apply siblings like ae_set_comp_settings or ae_set_layer.

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 explicitly states this is 'the tool to call before editing anything', giving a clear situational trigger. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a full when-not guide.

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