list_compositor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a non-mutating read and gives the return shape (tree name plus ordered effect chain), which is meaningful context. However, it says nothing about permissions, what happens if no compositor is enabled, or whether effects are returned with full node settings versus summaries.

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?

Two short sentences, with the operation and its scope front-loaded. The 'Returns:' line partially restates the first sentence ('with each effect's settings' vs 'chain of effects in order'), a minor redundancy but nothing wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail, and with zero parameters there are no argument semantics to cover. What remains — that the chain is ordered render-to-output — is supplied. Only the no-compositor / read-only safety context is missing, which is minor for a listing tool.

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, so the baseline is 4 — there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema confirms an empty object, consistent with the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the compositor chain') and adds scope detail — 'from render to output with each effect's settings' — which tells the agent what the listing contains. It is clearly a read of existing compositor state, distinct from the sibling mutators setup_compositor/set_compositor_effect, though it never names them.

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: the imperative 'List' signals a read/inspection operation, and the compositor-related siblings make the domain obvious. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus inspecting the node tree via get_node_tree, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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