List compositions

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; it partially does so by naming the returned fields, which implies a read-only enumeration with no side effects. However, it says nothing about pagination, permissions, or whether large projects are truncated, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope and output fields with no filler. Every clause 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 zero-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the one-line description covers purpose and the main return fields. It would be stronger if it mentioned composition names/IDs, which an agent likely needs to chain into other tools, but nothing critical 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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing in the input schema to clarify or contradict. No parameter detail is needed or missing.

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?

Specific verb+resource (list compositions) with explicit scope ('in the project') and the fields returned (size, duration, frame rate). It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like ae_create_composition or ae_list_layers without needing their schemas.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the way to enumerate compositions, but the description names no alternative, no prerequisite, and no condition for choosing it over ae_get_project_info or ae_list_layers. Minimum-viable guidance for a simple list tool.

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