get_composition_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Get detailed information' implies a read operation but does not disclose what information is returned, whether any side effects occur, or what error cases exist.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It earnestly conveys the tool's basic function in minimal space.

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?

Although the tool is simple, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what 'detailed information' includes and how it relates to the overlapping get_comp_report sibling. The current description is too vague to fully guide an agent in selecting or invoking the tool correctly.

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 100%, so compId and compName already have basic descriptions. The tool description adds no further meaning, and the fact that both parameters are optional while none are required leaves ambiguity about whether one, both, or specific combinations are expected.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('detailed information about a composition'), so the core purpose is recognizable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_comp_report, which likely overlaps in purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_comp_report, get_project_info, or list_compositions. It also does not state any prerequisites, required identifiers, or exclusions.

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