ae_get_selection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so with 'Changes nothing', a clear read-only declaration. It also discloses the shape of what is returned (keyframe time/value/interpolation/ease, property trees for groups), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by usage cues and the read-only note. The return-value enumeration is dense but every clause maps to real output, so little is wasted; the first sentence is somewhat run-on.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates well by describing return contents and the read-only guarantee. It omits the empty-selection case (what happens when nothing is selected), which an agent may need to interpret an empty response.

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?

The single 'depth' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description references 'property trees for selected groups' but adds no syntax, default, or depth-control guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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 (get the selection) and enumerates the returned entities precisely: project items, active-comp layers, selected properties with paths, values, keyframes and property trees. This clearly separates it from siblings like ae_get_layer_timing or ae_inspect, which target a single layer rather than the live user selection.

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?

Gives explicit triggering context with concrete user phrasings ('this', 'the selected layer', 'look at what I selected'), which is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when NOT to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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