Get Comp

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent profile, so the description is free to add operation-specific behavior: layers come back top-first, layer fields are only reported when non-default, and limit defaults to 150. Those are non-obvious traits an agent would not get from the annotations or schema.

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 compact sentences; the return-field list is front-loaded and the paging guidance follows. Every clause carries information, though the telegraphic phrasing ('kind or at', 'kinds counts all layers') costs some clarity for the sake of brevity.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and documents paging defaults, so an agent can call it on a large comp without surprises. Remaining gaps are the meaning of comp_id, error behavior for bad ids, and the ambiguous 'kinds counts all layers' note.

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 carries the burden, and it mostly does: name is a substring filter, at is in seconds and means 'layers visible then', limit/offset define paging with a stated default, and kind corresponds to the enum. Only comp_id is left unexplained, and the phrase 'kinds counts all layers' is too terse to be reliable.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get composition settings and its layers') and enumerates the returned layer fields, which makes the payload concrete rather than tautological. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_layer or get_project, so an agent must infer the split.

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 gives conditional guidance for one scenario ('Big comps: filter by name... page with limit/offset'), which tells the agent when to reach for filtering and paging. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_layer/get_project, and no prerequisites or exclusions above the paging case.

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