resolve_get_fusion_tools

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (listing tools), the return format (JSON array with type and name), and the scoping (clip at playhead, comp index). It does not explicitly state it is read-only or describe error behavior, but 'List' strongly implies no side effects. The description adds context beyond the schema by specifying the 1-based indexing and the playhead requirement.

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 extremely concise—two sentences, each earning its place. The purpose statement is front-loaded, followed by a brief parameter explanation and a clear return-type summary. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, the description is quite complete. It states what it lists, where (clip at playhead, comp index), and the output shape. It does not mention edge cases like 'no clip at playhead' or 'invalid comp index', but given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema (even if not fully shown), these gaps are minor. The description covers the essential context an agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the only parameter: 'comp_index' is a Fusion comp index, 1-based, with a default of 1. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides the type and default without explaining what the index refers to or its base. The description also clarifies the context in which the parameter applies (clip at playhead).

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 a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('all tools in a Fusion composition'), and a precise context ('on the clip at the playhead'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like resolve_get_fusion_comps (which lists comps) and resolve_add_fusion_comp (which adds a comp). An agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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 clear context for when to use it (requires a clip at the playhead with a Fusion composition, and accepts a comp index). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., resolve_get_fusion_comps for listing comps) or state any exclusion criteria. It is clear but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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