get_compositor_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description only repeats 'get' without adding behavioral context such as whether the active compositor tree is returned or what happens when no tree exists. It does not contradict the annotation, but it adds little beyond it.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundant detail. For a parameterless getter, this is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

With zero parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential invocation context. The only minor gap is not specifying that it targets the active compositor tree, but this is unlikely to block correct use.

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 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter information is needed.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('compositor node tree structure'), making the operation unambiguous. The 'compositor' qualifier clearly separates it from the sibling get_node_tree and get_geonodes_tree tools.

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 resource is named clearly, so an agent can infer that the tool is for retrieving the compositor tree, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose it over sibling node-tree getters or any mention of prerequisites like enabling the compositor. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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