ae_list_project_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is a read-only list operation and identifies the included item types, which is useful. However, it discloses no further behavior such as whether folders are recursively expanded, whether items are returned in project-panel order, whether hidden items appear, or whether the list is flat.

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 one sentence with no filler: verb, resource, scope, and item types all in a single line. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless read-only list tool, the description is basically adequate, but given generous sibling context and a large toolkit, it would benefit from clarifying scope details such as whether nested folder contents are included, how the result is ordered, and whether it overlaps with ae_list_compositions. No output schema exists, so a brief note on return shape would help.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (the schema is empty). The description confirms there is nothing to configure, so parameter semantics are not a gap. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 'List' with a clear resource ('items in the After Effects project panel') and enumerates item types. It is distinguishable from siblings like ae_list_compositions, which lists only compositions, and ae_get_composition_layers, which lists layers within a composition.

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 states what the tool lists, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus ae_list_compositions or ae_get_project_info. An agent can infer that this tool is the broad project-panel listing while siblings are more specific, but no direct guidance or exclusions are provided.

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