compositor-report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The verb 'report' implies a read-only inspection, but the description does not explain what information is returned, any side effects (or lack thereof), or error behavior. It offers only minimal behavioral transparency.

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 entire description is one short, focused phrase. It is front-loaded and free of waste. For a zero-parameter tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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?

The description is adequate for a trivial no-parameter report tool, but it is minimal. There is no output schema and no annotation, and the description does not state what the report contains or how the result will be presented, leaving some ambiguity about tool expectations.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so no parameter-specific documentation is required. Per the rubric, zero parameters gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameter details.

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 'Report scene compositor node tree' gives a clear verb and resource, specifying exactly what is reported. It distinguishes the tool from compositor mutation siblings like compositor-add_node and compositor-link, though it does not clarify the exact form or content of the report.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other report tools or compositor operations. The read-only nature is implied by the verb 'Report' and contrasted with compositor mutation tools, but no explicit usage context or exclusion is provided.

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