fusion_get_comp_names

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope ('all compositions on a timeline item') but does not disclose behavior for edge cases (e.g., missing items, empty results, or track resolution). Does not contradict annotations.

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?

A single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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 simplicity, an output schema exists, and annotations are present, the description is sufficiently complete for a list operation. It could mention what happens when no compositions exist, but this is likely covered by the output schema. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly state the return type beyond 'names'.

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 100%, meaning all three parameters (item_name, track_type, track_index) have their own descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource ('names of all Fusion compositions') and scope ('on a timeline item'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like fusion_get_comp_count (which counts compositions) and fusion_get_comp (which gets a specific composition).

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 implicitly indicates usage by its action, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It's a straightforward statement without comparative guidance.

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