inspect-comp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the exact output content—settings (size, fps, duration, work area) and layer summary fields—and the comp selection fallback. It does not explicitly state that the tool is side-effect-free, but the 'inspect' and 'Map' framing strongly implies a read-only operation; a direct statement would make it a 5.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: output specification, usage guidance, and parameter selection. The first sentence is dense but every item in the enumeration is informative; there is no filler or redundancy.

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, the description compensates by listing every output category in detail (composition settings and a comprehensive layer summary field list). It also explains comp selection and the recommended next action, making the tool fully self-contained for an agent.

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 already covers 100% of parameter semantics, including compName being recommended, compIndex being 1-based, and active comp fallback. The description essentially restates this selection logic without adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Map a whole composition') and enumerates exactly what is returned: settings plus every layer with a detailed summary. It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool inspect-layer by noting that one should 'call inspect-layer for one layer's full detail.'

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?

It explicitly states the intended use case: 'Use this to navigate a comp and decide what to edit, then call inspect-layer for one layer's full detail.' It also provides clear selection guidance for compName/compIndex and the active comp fallback, so the agent knows when and how to use it.

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