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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, but the description adds substantial context: the exact return shape, that URLs are signed, that `alive:false` refs are dead because the stored file is gone and are already excluded from usable lists, and that chat-attached photos live elsewhere. This is well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 action, then the two return groups, then the consumption path, then the caveat — a logical order with no filler. It is a dense paragraph and slightly long for a single getter, but nearly every sentence contributes actionable detail.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly (two named groups, typed slots, signed URLs, alive flags). Combined with the routing guidance into generate_video, an agent has everything needed to call and consume this correctly.

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 no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the returned fields and how to route them into generate_video, which is useful but not parameter semantics per se.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Read your staged references in Switch Studio") and immediately enumerates the two distinct groups returned (`refs` image-generation strip vs `videoReferences` video-tab strip). This is specific enough to separate it from siblings like list_my_assets or upload_media without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit call condition ("Call this before generate_image or generate_video whenever the user says 'use my refs'") and a matching exclusion with a named alternative (a photo attached in THIS chat is in neither group — use upload_media instead). Both the when and the when-not are spelled out.

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