ae_get_composition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Get' indicates a read operation, and 'response_format=detailed for layer list' discloses a behavioral distinction between formats. It does not mention potential errors, precedence rules, or whether the tool falls back to an active composition, but it is not misleading.

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 short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. The response_format instruction is placed second and earns its place. It is concise without padding.

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 simple read-only getter, the description covers the main purpose and a key parameter behavior. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not describe return structure, and the optionality of all parameters leaves the no-argument case unexplained.

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 67%, between thresholds, so the description is not required to fully compensate. It adds meaning for response_format by stating that detailed returns the layer list, which the schema lacks. It adds nothing beyond the schema for comp_name/comp_index and leaves the no-argument default ambiguous.

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 names a clear action and scope: 'Get composition settings and layer index.' It is specific enough to distinguish from ae_get_layer and ae_list_compositions, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 provides one useful usage condition: 'Use response_format=detailed for layer list.' However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over ae_get_layer or ae_list_compositions, and it does not explain what happens when neither comp_name nor comp_index is supplied (both are optional).

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