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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read, but the description says nothing about error behavior for missing IDs, permission requirements, or whether the media references are IDs, URLs, or embedded objects. Only a minimal content hint is offered.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key noun phrase ('a specific shot') and the scope hint ('including its media references') are both stated up front.

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 three-ID read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable: it says what entity is fetched and one aspect of the return. It does not describe the response shape or the relationship between the three required IDs, leaving gaps an agent must discover at call time.

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% for all three parameters (workspaceId, editId, shotId), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no syntax, format, or hierarchical relationship detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 shot.' The added phrase 'including its media references' hints at content scope. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_scene, get_edit_full, or list_shots, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 list_shots (for enumerating shots) or get_edit_full (for a whole edit). No prerequisites or context given. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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