view-comp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the output is one IMAGE containing multiple evenly spaced frames annotated with their times, and it defaults to the active composition. It omits cost/side-effect context such as render latency or whether After Effects must be running, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action ('SEE a composition'), followed by the return format, the usage trigger, and the default. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 6-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value semantics (single image, frame timestamps) and the default target composition. It leaves minor gaps about rendering cost and environment prerequisites.

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% and every parameter is already documented with defaults and bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description only lightly reinforces this by noting the active-composition default (compName) and the evenly spaced frame sampling, adding no new syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: renders evenly spaced frames from an After Effects composition and returns a single composite image with per-frame timestamps. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create-composition or apply-effect, which mutate the project rather than produce a visual preview.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it: after building or animating something, to verify text placement, timing and motion before reporting completion. It gives clear context but names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when a single-frame preview would be preferable).

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