cavalry_get_scene_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool retrieves, but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, whether it requires an open composition, or any potential side effects. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Retrieves', clearly states the object (active Cavalry composition), and lists examples efficiently. No wasted words.

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 tool, the description covers the key output items. However, without an output schema, the agent may benefit from knowing the exact return format (e.g., JSON object, property names). It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds value by listing what the metadata includes (current frame, duration, etc.), providing context beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 it retrieves metadata about the active Cavalry composition, listing specific items (current frame, total duration, frame rate, layer hierarchy). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cavalry_get_frame (specific frame) and cavalry_get_comp_layers (layer-specific).

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 for general composition metadata but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., cavalry_get_frame for frame only, cavalry_get_comp_layers for layers). No exclusions or alternative preconditions are mentioned.

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