get_comp_report

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

With no annotations, the description does the work: it lists the report contents, notes that animated values are sampled over time with a marker-based default, and implies a read-only verification role, though it doesn't warn about potentially large outputs or performance costs.

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?

Two sentences, first delivers the core scope, second states the intended use. No filler words, all information relevant.

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?

The description enumerates report contents and sampling behavior, which is substantial given no output schema, but it doesn't clarify how compId vs compName resolution works when both are optional, and it doesn't discuss the return format or size, leaving some ambiguity for a complex report 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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions covering 100%, so the baseline applies. The description mentions sampling 'at markers by default', which mirrors the schema's sampleTimes description without adding new parameter-level semantics.

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 clearly states this tool produces a full composition report including layers, geometry, text, fonts, expressions, keyframes, and animated values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_composition_info or get_layer_info which likely return narrower data.

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 it to verify the real state of a comp', providing a clear use case, but it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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