ae_openComp

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, which is ambiguous for a tool named 'openComp'. The description resolves that ambiguity by characterizing the effect as view/context state (opening in viewer/timeline and setting the active comp) rather than data mutation, and discloses the optional playhead side effect. It stops short of saying what happens if the comp name is unmatched.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the optional argument plus net effect appended. Nothing is wasted and no sentence is redundant.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is close to adequate, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The gaps are the missing time units/format and the absence of any statement about failure (comp not found) — small but real for a tool whose whole job is targeting a named comp.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters: it maps 'time' to the playhead and implies compositionName via 'a comp'. It adds no units (AE expects seconds), no name-matching semantics, and no indication that compositionName is required.

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 concrete verb and resource ('open a comp in the viewer/timeline') plus the resulting side effect ('makes it the active comp'), which an agent can distinguish from ae_getCompState or ae_createComp. It does not name a sibling explicitly, though the optional playhead move borders on ae_setCurrentTime's territory without acknowledging it.

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?

Usage is implied by 'makes it the active comp' — an agent can infer this is how you switch context before issuing comp-scoped commands. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as ae_setCurrentTime for pure playhead changes.

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