ae_get_layer_timing

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 most important trait — 'Changes nothing' establishes this is a non-mutating read. Beyond that it offers no permission requirements, latency, or output-format context, so it is adequate but thin for an unannotated tool.

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 with zero filler; the returned fields are front-loaded and the behavioral note comes last where it belongs. Every clause earns its place.

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 parameterless-output read tool, the description enumerates the returned timing values so the agent knows what to expect without an output schema, and 'Changes nothing' covers the safety profile. Nothing essential is missing, though it could note what happens if the layer is not found.

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% and both parameters (comp, layer) are documented in the schema itself, including the 'omit to use active composition' and 1-based index semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the resource (layer timing) and enumerates the specific values returned (start, in/out points, duration, source in/out, stretch), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. The 'get' verb is implied by the name and the 'Changes nothing' clause. Sibling differentiation is only implicit (contrast with ae_set_layer), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (e.g., ae_inspect or ae_get_selection for broad reads). 'Changes nothing' faintly signals it is safe to call, but no usage guidance is actually given.

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