Get composition info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so "Read-only" is largely redundant, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: large comps are paged and the response carries totalLayers and nextLayerOffset. It does not explain what markers or switches contain, but the core operational behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then paging, then disambiguation. The parenthetical field list is dense but informative, and no sentence is filler.

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, so the description has to describe returns, and it does so at the field-name level plus pagination guidance. It stops short of explaining the shape of settings/markers or default page size interplay, which leaves a minor gap for a zero-required-param read tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by tying layerOffset/layerLimit to the paged result fields rather than restating them. includeLayers is only implied through "summary of its layers," which is why this is not a 5.

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 (get comp info) and enumerates exactly what comes back: settings, markers, and a layer summary with index, id, name, type, timing, parent, switches. It is clearly differentiable from ae_get_layer_info and ae_get_comp_map, which are named for their narrower scopes.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use this to see what a comp contains, ae_get_layer_info for one layer in full, ae_get_comp_map for nested precomps, parenting and expression links. It also states when to page and which result fields drive pagination (totalLayers / nextLayerOffset).

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