ae_list_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one useful behavioral fact, 'Changes nothing,' confirming a non-mutating read, and it summarizes return contents including the usedIn count semantics. It does not disclose pacing, size limits, or whether output is exhaustive for large projects.

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 the action front-loaded and no filler. The enumeration of returned fields earns its space by clarifying output, though it runs slightly long for a one-parameter read tool.

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 present, the description must shoulder return-value explanation, and it does so partially by naming the fields returned. For a simple one-optional-param list tool this is close to complete, though it omits ordering or depth details.

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 the single 'items' parameter is already documented with its default. The description reinforces what 'other items' means (folders, footage, solids), but adds no syntax beyond what the schema supplies, 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the open project') and enumerates what the result contains (compositions, layers, folders, footage, solids). It cleanly distinguishes from write-oriented siblings like ae_save_project or ae_create_comp, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from inspection siblings such as ae_get_selection or ae_inspect.

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 implied: you'd call this to survey the open project's contents. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no routing toward alternatives like ae_get_selection or ae_inspect, so the agent must infer the choice.

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