Comp info

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds value by disclosing batch capability ('fetch several comps in one call'), exact-match behavior ('Composition name (exact match)' in schema), and the specific fields returned. It goes beyond the simple read-only annotation without contradicting it.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with a clear summary and then an invocation note. It is concise, with no wasted words, and the list of fields is efficient.

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, so the description's enumeration of returned fields (size, fps, duration, work area, motion blur, layer summaries) provides essential context. It also covers input modes and batch behavior. It lacks detail on response format for layer summaries, but the description is sufficiently complete for a read-only info tool with a simple input parameter.

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 fully explains the nameOrId parameter, including accepted types and the array batch option. The main description also mentions 'Pass a comp name or item id — or an ARRAY of them' but adds no new syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Detailed comp info' with specific fields (size, fps, duration, work area, motion blur, layer summaries). The verb 'fetch' is implied and the resource (composition) is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ae_layer_info and ae_project_info.

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?

The main description implies usage for retrieving comp details and mentions batching via arrays. The schema description adds explicit guidance: 'If you don't know any, call ae_project_info first.' This names an alternative tool but does not fully describe when not to use it, though it covers the primary decision point.

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