get_expression

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'get the expression', implying a read operation, but fails to state whether the operation is safe, if the property must exist, what happens on failure (e.g., if no expression is set), or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient but lacks structure to separate purpose from usage details. While not verbose, it sacrifices completeness; a short description can still be well-structured, but here it is just a bare statement.

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 the tool has five parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what an 'expression' is, how to reference a property within a layer/composition, or the return format. The agent has insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 should explain the meaning and relationships of the five parameters (compId, compName, property, layerName, layerIndex). The description offers no parameter information at all. An agent cannot determine how to specify which property to target without additional context.

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 'Get the expression from a property' clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (expression), and context (from a property). This distinguishes it from sibling expression tools like set_expression, remove_expression, and enable_expression. However, it does not explicitly state that it reads an existing expression, which could add clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use get_expression versus alternatives such as set_expression, remove_expression, or related tools like get_keyframes. The description does not mention prerequisites or context in which this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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