Inspect After Effects Template Source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by stating two hard boundaries: it will not create a composition and will not return asset paths, which prevents an agent from expecting side effects or file locations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the inspected attributes, followed by the caveat clause. Efficient and free of filler, though the trailing negative sentence slightly dilutes the core statement.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value detail is unnecessary, annotations cover the safety profile, and the single parameter is fully documented. Combined with the stated API-version precondition and side-effect boundaries, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents that composition_name is optional and that omission inspects the active composition. The description's reference to a "saved After Effects source composition" adds mild framing but no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (After Effects source composition) and enumerates exactly what it extracts: dimensions, duration, text fonts, layer-source kinds, and Essential Graphics controller names. It does not, however, contrast itself against near neighbors such as inspect_after_effects_render_templates, inspect_mogrt_library, or get_mogrt_component, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

"when the host exposes the AE 16.1+ readback API" is a genuine precondition, and "never creates a composition or returns asset paths" bounds expectations. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for similar inspection tasks, so the routing signal is only implied.

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