fusion_summarize_comp_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only says 'return a summary.' It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or what side effects (if any) occur. The content of the summary is undefined, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence with no superfluous words. It conveys the core purpose front-loaded, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the summary's format (e.g., text, JSON) or content (e.g., node count, frame range). 'Compact active-comp summary' is vague and insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. It correctly implies a self-contained operation, earning a baseline score of 4.

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 explicitly states the tool returns a 'compact active-comp summary,' with a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('active-comp summary'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly mutation or other query tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fusion_get_comp_settings_tool or fusion_get_status_tool. It only vaguely targets 'AI agents,' which does not help an agent decide between similar informational tools.

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