get_composition_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose 'Side effects: none' (read-only) and warns that large Sets produce large JSON results, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about output structure or size thresholds beyond the vague warning.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by compact side-effect, example, and edge-case notes. Reasonably tight, though the example line restates the summary somewhat.

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 no-arg read tool with no output schema, the description adequately signals what comes back (tracks, scenes, unnamed tracks) and that results scale with Set size. It falls short on differentiating from the several read siblings that return overlapping data.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 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?

Clear verb 'Retrieve' with a specific resource: 'full track layout, scene count, and composition properties'. However, it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like get_track_list, get_scenes, get_session_overview, and get_project_metadata, leaving the agent to guess which one to pick.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Given the heavy overlap with get_track_list, get_scenes, and get_session_overview, the absence of any routing condition is a notable gap.

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