Get properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, especially that large trees are truncated and can be narrowed by depth or path, and it lists the kinds of property data returned. A 4 rather than 5 reflects that the exact return shape and any truncation limits are only lightly described.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then immediately adds routing guidance and truncation behavior. Every sentence earns its place: the field list, read-only note, setter prep guidance, sibling alternatives, and truncation workaround all provide actionable information without 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?

For a six-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the returned property fields, explains path/depth usage, warns about truncation, and routes to sibling tools for search and keyframe detail. An agent has what it needs to call this correctly without relying on missing output documentation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds some context for path and depth in relation to subgroup inspection and truncation, but it does not meaningfully elaborate keyframes or includeHidden beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema is doing most of the parameter-documentation work.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Inspect', and a precise resource, 'property tree of one layer (or a sub-group via path)', then lists the contents surfaced: names, match names, values, keyframe counts, and expressions. It also distinguishes the tool from ae_find_properties and ae_get_keyframes, so an agent can identify it without opening sibling schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: discover property paths before ae_set_property, ae_set_keyframes, and ae_set_expression. It also names concrete alternatives and the conditions selecting them: ae_find_properties for whole-comp name search and ae_get_keyframes for exact timing/easing. Truncation guidance to lower depth or start at a path is included.

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