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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read ('Get') but says nothing about permissions, response size, whether requesting shots/scenes is expensive, or how this differs in payload from get_edit_full.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and the optional behavior appended. No filler, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with a near-identical sibling.

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 read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The significant omission is disambiguation from get_edit_full, which an agent in this 130-tool namespace genuinely needs.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's 'optionally including scenes and shots' merely restates includeScenes/includeShots without adding format or cost semantics, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific edit') and even flags the optional expansion of scenes/shots. However, it does not differentiate itself from the obviously related sibling get_edit_full, leaving the agent unsure which 'get' 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 guidance on when to use this versus get_edit_full, list_edits, or inspect_edit_frame. The word 'optionally' hints at the include flags but the description never states the condition under which scenes/shots should be requested.

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