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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable context: it is project-scoped, requires an explicit project_id (never guesses), and explicitly says it does not prescribe effects, directing the agent to use look_at for visual decisions. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense but efficient, with key info front-loaded (project-scoped, READ, cross-modal timeline). Each sentence earns its place: scope, content, usage guidance, caveat, and parameter notes. It is longer than average but warranted given the tool's complexity. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description thoroughly explains the output content (sentences/shots, shot changes, energy/trend, beats, stress, pauses, face/UI evidence) and clarifies what the tool does not do (prescribe effects). It also notes the need for look_at for visual decisions and explains asset_key. With no output schema, this description carries the burden well. The only gap is the lack of detail on start/end/limit parameters, but those are likely self-explanatory time and count ranges.

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 coverage is only 17% (only project_id has a description). The description compensates partially: it explains that asset_key is for an indexed uploaded clip and enumerates focus options ('focus can be all, story, visual, energy, faces, ui, quiet or peaks'). However, it does not explain start, end, or limit parameters, which are likely time range and result count. The description adds value but does not fully compensate for the low coverage of all parameters.

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 the tool's purpose: it returns a project-scoped, compact cross-modal SOURCE timeline with detailed evidence (sentences/shots, shot changes, energy, beats, stress, pauses, face/UI evidence). It explicitly differentiates from reading transcript, shots, and audio analysis separately, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_shots, get_transcript, and get_audio_analysis.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this instead of separately re-reading transcript + shots + audio analysis when directing a substantial reel, podcast, montage or B-roll/SFX/motion treatment.' It also states limitations: 'It aligns evidence but does not recognize the full picture or prescribe effects: inspect filmstrips/look_at before visual choices.' This gives the agent clear conditions for selection.

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