Composition structure map

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the redundant 'Read-only' line adds little; however, the description does disclose the analytical scope of the call (static dependency analysis across precomps, mattes, expressions) which tells the agent what class of information it will get. It stops short of noting cost on heavily nested comps or how depth truncation is reported.

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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence describing outputs, then a short routing sentence. Every clause earns its place; the purpose is front-loaded before the alternatives.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content and does so by enumerating the data categories an agent will receive. Combined with explicit sibling routing and fully documented parameters, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 already documents the comp id/name/'active' semantics and the depth default of 4 with its 1-10 range. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Overview of how a composition is built') and enumerates exactly the structures returned: nested precomp tree with usage counts, parenting chains, track mattes, and expression cross-references. This is clearly distinguishable from ae_get_comp_info and ae_project_xray at a glance.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'to understand an unfamiliar comp before editing' and names both alternatives with their conditions (ae_get_comp_info for one comp's settings/layer list, ae_project_xray for whole-project issues). Routing is fully determined.

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