get_composition_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only (no mutation), what happens if the composition is missing, or any performance or side effects. While 'Get' implies a safe read, the description omits explicit behavioral traits that help the agent assess cost or risk.

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, clean sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It wastes no words. However, it could easily incorporate more detail (like usage guidance or behavioral context) while remaining concise, especially since it is very short.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool has a sibling with a similar purpose (get_comp_report), the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what detailed information is returned (e.g., properties, metadata) or how it differs from list_compositions or get_comp_report. For a straightforward retrieval tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves significant ambiguity.

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 both parameters ('compId' and 'compName') are already documented with basic descriptions. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as whether one parameter is preferred over the other or how they relate. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 the purpose as 'Get detailed information about a composition', which pairs a clear verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('composition information'). However, it fails to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_comp_report', which likely serves a similar role. The description would benefit from specifying how 'information' differs from a '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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool over alternatives like get_comp_report or list_compositions. The description lacks any context for prerequisites (e.g., does the composition need to exist first?), when-not-to-use scenarios, or selection criteria among siblings. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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