Export project JSON

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

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses the disk-write side effect, that inline output may be large, and the full scope of what is serialized. It stops short of noting performance cost on large projects or any error behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The scope enumeration leads, and the output-destination rule follows immediately, making it fully front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the exact JSON contents (comps, layers, keyframes, effects, etc.) and flagging that inline responses can be large. Combined with a fully documented parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and all three parameters (pretty, outPath, instance) have thorough descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of outPath vs inline is a restatement of what the schema already documents, adding no format or syntax detail beyond it — the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (serialize/export) and resource (entire project) and enumerates exactly what is captured — folders, comps, layers, keyframes, effects, shapes, markers, time remap, solids, file refs. This clearly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling ae_project_import_json and from ae_save_project, which persists rather than serializes.

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?

Explains the mode selection rule — set `outPath` to write to disk, omit it to get the JSON inline — which is the key decision an agent must make. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over siblings like ae_project_info (summary) or ae_save_project (persist), so routing among related tools is left to inference.

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