resolve_get_fusion_comps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with comp names and count) and the targeting logic, but does not mention edge cases like empty tracks or missing clips, nor any side effects. This is adequate for a read-only listing tool but not exhaustive.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter explanations. The Args section is moderately compact, though it could be more succinct. No wasted words, but the formatting could be improved for readability.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no required params) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameters. It doesn't need to detail return values since the output schema exists. It lacks edge-case handling but is sufficient for typical 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 0 means use playhead and 1-based indexing for both parameters, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the difference between track_index and clip_index beyond their positional roles, leaving some ambiguity about how they interact.

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 states that the tool lists Fusion compositions on a timeline clip and targets the clip at the playhead by default. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like resolve_add_fusion_comp and resolve_get_fusion_tools, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

It explains that track_index and clip_index can be set to 0 to use the playhead, which is the primary usage pattern. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, though the default behavior is clear.

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