get_composition_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is for getting information, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, performance considerations, or what 'detailed information' entails. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized without unnecessary words, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly more informative by specifying the type of information retrieved, but it earns a high score for being direct and waste-free.

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 complexity of a composition tool in a rich sibling set, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential return values, or how it integrates with other tools like 'get_layer_info'. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'compId' documented as 'ID of the composition'. The description does not add meaning beyond this, as it only references 'a specific composition' without elaborating on parameter usage or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get detailed information about a specific composition', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'composition', but lacks specificity on what information is retrieved (e.g., settings, layers, duration). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_composition' or 'modify_composition' by being read-only, but does not differentiate from 'get_layer_info' or 'get_mask_info' in terms of scope.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage when detailed composition info is needed, but it does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or name specific alternatives like 'list_compositions' for overviews or 'get_project_info' for broader context.

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