ae_getCompState

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what is actually surfaced (comp timing/work-area plus full layer roster with parent, 3D, blend, matte), which is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about behavior when no comp is open or how large comps are handled.

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 content-rich sentence plus a four-word imperative. The scope is front-loaded ('read the active (or named) comp') and every clause carries an inventory of returned fields with no 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the comp and layer fields. Only edge cases (empty state, no active comp, unit conventions) are unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a read-only inspection tool.

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 the single parameter already documents 'omit to use the active comp'. The description's 'active (or named) comp' merely restates 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 (read) and resource (the active or named comp), then enumerates exactly what state is returned: size, fps, duration, current time, work area, and per-layer attributes. This clearly separates it from layer-level siblings like ae_getLayer and from ae_getProjectState.

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 closing imperative 'Call this first' gives an explicit ordering cue, which is the key usage guidance for an orientation tool. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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