Comp info

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds behavioral context by stating the tool returns detailed fields and supports batching multiple comps in one call, which is useful beyond the annotation's safety signal.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information (what it returns) and then explains the input options. Zero fluff, every word earns its place.

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 info tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential details: return content, input flexibility, and batching. No critical information 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 description coverage is 100% and fully explains the nameOrId parameter (string/number/array, exact match, fallback to ae_project_info). The description's mention of arrays reinforces but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('fetch' implied) and resource ('comp info'), lists concrete fields (size, fps, duration, work area, motion blur, layer summaries), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like ae_layer_info (layers) and ae_project_info (project-level) by focusing on compositions.

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?

The description implies when to use it (when you have a comp name or id) and the schema explicitly advises calling ae_project_info if you lack one. This gives clear context and a specific alternative, though the main description doesn't contrast with other sibling tools.

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