Inspect After Effects Template Source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral constraints beyond annotations: it never creates a composition and never returns asset paths, and it depends on the AE 16.1+ readback API being exposed. This gives the agent important failure-context and scope information.

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 with no filler. The main purpose and scoped dimensions are front-loaded, and the behavioral exclusions are stated succinctly in the second sentence. Every clause adds useful information.

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?

This is a simple read-only inspection tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what is inspected, the API prerequisite, and explicit non-behaviors. It is complete for an agent to select and call the tool correctly, though it stops short of detailing error behavior when the API is absent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter composition_name, including the active-composition fallback behavior. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it does not need to; the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Inspect a saved After Effects source composition') and enumerates the exact dimensions of interest: MOGRT-relevant dimensions, duration, text fonts, layer-source kinds, and Essential Graphics controller names. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_after_effects_render_templates or verify_mogrt_artifact.

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 description gives a clear condition for use: 'when the host exposes the AE 16.1+ readback API.' It also states what the tool does not do ('never creates a composition or returns asset paths'), which helps avoid misuse. It does not explicitly name alternative tools when the API is unavailable, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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