ae_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and 'Changes nothing' is a clear, valuable read-only disclosure not present in structured fields. It also surfaces the default scoping behavior, though it omits anything about return shape or size limits for a tool that returns a deep tree.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the resource, content, default-scope caveat, and read-only guarantee are all front-loaded.

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 an 8-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys purpose, default scoping, and safety adequately. The main omission is any hint of the return payload's size or shape, which an agent might want given the 'deep tree' framing.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description's mention of modifiedOnly mostly restates the schema default and adds 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?

The description gives a specific resource ('Deep property tree of a layer or of one of its groups') and enumerates what it contains (values, keyframes, easing, expressions). It clearly reads as an inspection tool, but it never names or distinguishes itself from close siblings such as ae_get_layer_timing or ae_list_layer_effects.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'inspect' plus the note that only modified properties appear by default. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to an alternative sibling for narrower reads.

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