ae_get_composition_settings

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

The description discloses the return content by listing the kinds of settings included, which is useful since there is no output schema. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is side-effect-free or describe error behavior, and with no annotations the description carries a heavier burden.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object, then adds clarifying examples. Every word contributes value with no 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?

For a simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by listing common composition settings and signaling that more exist with 'etc.' It could be more exhaustive about exact return shape, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 provides a clear description for the single parameter comp_name ('Composition name') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional detail about the parameter, so it stays at the schema-covered baseline.

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 and object: 'Get all settings of a composition', and enumerates concrete examples (size, fps, duration, bg color, work area) that make the tool's scope immediately clear. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ae_get_composition_layers or ae_get_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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ae_get_composition_layers or ae_get_project_info. The read-oriented name implies usage for reading settings, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or suggested alternatives.

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