ae_get_audio_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the read-only nature ('Changes nothing') and what the response contains, which is genuinely useful. It omits edge behavior such as what happens when the layer has no audio or how comp/layer name resolution failures surface.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the resource and then lists the returned fields, ending with the safety claim. No filler, nothing to trim.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description stands in for one by naming the returned data (path, levels with keyframes, markers). The main gap is that it doesn't distinguish this metadata read from ae_analyze_audio's likely waveform analysis.

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 100%, so both parameters (comp, layer) are already fully documented in the schema, including the omit-to-use-active-comp default and 1-based indexing. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ('Audio info of a layer') and enumerates exactly what that info contains: source file path, audio levels with keyframes, and existing markers. That enumeration separates it cleanly from siblings like ae_set_audio_levels, ae_analyze_audio, and ae_add_markers.

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?

'Changes nothing' implies a safe read-only inspection, so the context is inferable, but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus ae_analyze_audio or ae_get_layer_timing, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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