Inspect targets

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, yet the description still adds real behavioral detail: the 16-target cap, the shape of the return (values, key counts, reusable opaque references), and the caveat that repeated sibling match names cannot yield reusable property references.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information — capability, return shape, prerequisites, and an edge-case limitation — with no filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately summarizes the return payload. With only three params and 67% coverage, prerequisites and limits are covered; only the instance-selection semantics of the nested target objects are left to the schema.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description still adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that layer indices are 1-based (the schema only says exclusiveMinimum 0, which is ambiguous), that property paths use canonical match names, and that compId is a composition (not item) ID. It does not explain the nested propertyPath index field.

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 and resource ('Inspect ... layer or property targets in one read') and quantifies scope ('up to 16'), which distinguishes it from per-object siblings like ae_layer_info and from the general-purpose ae_do.

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?

It gives input prerequisites (numeric composition ID, 1-based layer indices, canonical match names) but never says when to prefer this batch inspector over ae_layer_info, ae_comp_info, or ae_do. Usage is implied by the 'one read' batching framing rather than stated.

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