get_comp_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses default sampling behavior (markers or 5 uniform points) and lists the data types included. However, it does not mention any prerequisites, performance implications for large compositions, or whether the operation is read-only.

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, front-loaded with the core offering, zero filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's output and purpose.

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 complex tool with 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what data is returned and default behavior. However, it lacks description of the output structure (e.g., how layers are organized) and does not mention error conditions or constraints.

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 value by clarifying default behavior for 'sampleTimes' (markers by default) and 'textPreview' (120 max characters), which goes beyond the schema descriptions. It subtly ties the parameters to the tool's purpose.

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 the tool returns a 'full composition report' with specific content (geometry, text data, fonts, expressions, keyframes, animated values). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_composition_info' which likely provides metadata only, and 'list_layers' which is a simpler listing.

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 description explicitly says 'Use it to verify the real state of a comp,' providing a clear usage context. However, it does not contrast with alternatives such as 'get_composition_info' or 'list_layers' for when not to use this tool.

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