cavalry_get_composition_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get information,' which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, error behavior (e.g., if no composition is open), or return format details. The listed fields (resolution, frame range, FPS) hint at output but fall short of full transparency.

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 that immediately states the action and resource, then enumerates the key data points. It contains no filler or redundant wording, making it exceptionally concise.

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 parameterless, read-only tool, the description covers the important return values (resolution, frame range, FPS). Since there is no output schema, it does provide some return information, but it could be more explicit about the format or units (e.g., pixel dimensions, frame numbers). Overall, it is adequately complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty input schema is sufficient. No additional semantic value is required or provided.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get information about the active composition' with specific examples (resolution, frame range, FPS). The verb 'get' and resource 'composition' differentiate it from sibling tools like cavalry_get_scene_layers or cavalry_get_attribute, which target other resources.

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 implies usage context by naming 'active composition,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cavalry_get_scene_layers or cavalry_get_attribute. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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