get_stage_composition

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating inspection, and the listed content indicates the scope of that read. It does not discuss side effects, permissions, or failure modes, but for a read-only composition query this is a reasonably transparent description.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence with no filler or repetition. The verb is front-loaded, and the remaining content is a compact list of the data items returned, making it easy to scan.

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 complete enough for a caller who simply wants to know what the tool returns, especially with an output schema available. However, the unexplained command_id and idempotency_key create a meaningful gap, and the absence of any sibling routing guidance leaves the agent to infer when this composite read is preferable to more targeted tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the three underdocumented parameters. It does not mention root_path, command_id, or idempotency_key at all, nor does it explain how 'root layer' maps to root_path or why a read operation has idempotency_key. The agent receives no help understanding parameter meaning beyond the schema's default values and titles.

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 states a clear verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('stage composition'), and enumerates the exact pieces of data returned (root layer, full layer stack, prim count, references/payloads, variant selections, semantics, stage metadata). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related read tools like get_scene_info or get_prim_info, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a caller needs a comprehensive read of stage composition data. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it or what to prefer for narrower reads such as get_scene_info or get_semantic_labels.

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