ae_list_compositions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the parenthetical conveys the return content, but side-effect-free behavior, ordering, failure cases, and the implications of 'open project' are not explicitly 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with the action and scope front-loaded, followed by a tight parenthetical list of output fields. Every word contributes useful information with no fluff.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, naming the scope and the returned fields is sufficient for an agent to select and call it. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit field list, though minor details like ordering or error behavior are not mentioned.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 applies because the no-parameter case needs no further elaboration.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource, 'compositions in the open project', and enumerates the returned fields: name, size, fps, duration, layer count. It is distinct from create/get/apply tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar list/get tools like ae_get_composition.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ae_get_composition or ae_get_project_info. The phrase 'in the open project' provides scope but no exclusions, conditions, or routing hints.

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