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

Annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) are consistent and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that problem lists are attached to every other tool result, defines the semantics of an open problem ('that timeline does NOT play or export correctly there, whatever inspect_timeline showed'), and unpacks all four `state` values including the non-obvious caveat that `superseded` is NOT proof of correctness.

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 and failure taxonomy before the secondary behaviors; nearly every sentence carries distinct information. It is dense and slightly run-on (the parenthetical 'WHERE' clause is heavy), but there is no filler to cut.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden and does: it specifies what each record contains (location in timeline/source/frames, the engine's reason in its own words, and `state`). The only omission is pagination/volume behavior, which is minor for a read-only diagnostic list.

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 description coverage is 100%, so token, detail, projectId, and includeResolved are already documented; that sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only an implicit mapping ('call this for the whole history' → includeResolved) and no guidance on when to turn on `detail` or how projectId scoping interacts with the free `problems` list.

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?

Starts with a specific framing ('What has gone WRONG in the user's editor') and enumerates the concrete failure classes it reports (failed renders, undecodable footage, unpreparable chunks, failed exports). It explicitly contrasts with inspect_timeline, so an agent can tell it apart from the diagnostic siblings (verify_timeline, get_bug_report) without opening schemas.

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 explicit triggers: call it 'for the whole history, or after a `moreProblems` count.' It also states the alternative channel — the `problems` list already piggybacked on every other tool result — so the agent knows when this call is redundant. It further routes remediation to the named sibling (update_motion_composition).

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