inspect-comp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It describes in detail the output (comp settings + layer summaries with many fields) and the selection mechanism. It does not mention side effects, but it implies a read-only operation. The description is transparent about what the tool returns, which is sufficient.

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 two sentences, but the first is a very long list. It is front-loaded with the key information. The structure is logical: output description, then usage guidance. Could be slightly more concise, but it earns its sentences.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the return values with a comprehensive list. The two parameters are optional and the selection logic is clear. The sibling tools are mentioned via 'inspect-layer' differentiation. It is complete for an overview 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'leave both empty for the active comp' and clarifies the 1-based index, adding meaning beyond the schema properties descriptions.

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 states it maps a composition's settings and every layer with a useful summary, listing specific attributes. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'inspect-layer' by indicating that this is for an overview and 'inspect-layer' is for one layer's full detail.

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 explicitly says use this to navigate a comp and decide what to edit, then call inspect-layer for full detail. This provides when-to-use guidance. It also explains how to select the comp (by name, index, or leave empty for active comp). No explicit when-not, but the context is clear enough.

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