List compositions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's read-only nature is redundant. The description adds the detail that it returns size, duration, and frame rate for each composition, which is a light behavioral trait. It does not disclose edge cases like empty projects, sorting order, or performance implications for many comps, but given the read-only annotation covering safety, the additional value is modest.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('List every composition in the project') and then lists the key attributes. Every word contributes value, making it an exemplar of concise, structured descriptions.

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 parameterless listing tool with read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., array of objects), but since there is no output schema, an agent must infer from typical tool behavior. The scope is clear, and the tool's simplicity means the description covers the essential context.

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 tool has zero parameters回报, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The schema coverage is 100% (trivially, as there are no parameters), and the description clearly states what is returned (size, duration, frame rate). This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool without further parameter guidance.

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 ('list') and resource ('every composition in the project'), and clearly enumerates the returned attributes (size, duration, frame rate). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ae_comp_info by implying a comprehensive listing, whereas ae_comp_info likely targets a single composition. The scope is unambiguous.

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 for retrieving an overview of all compositions, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like ae_comp_info or ae_project_info. It does not provide exclusion criteria or context such as 'use this to get a high-level view before drilling into individual comps'. However, the verb 'list every' clearly indicates a bulk enumeration, which distinguishes it from singular counterparts.

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