inspect_media_pool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It states the recursive nature and optional clip metadata inclusion, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like read-only nature, performance implications, or any side effects. The description is adequate but minimal.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the core action and then adding the optional detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 optional parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and the one parameter. No additional information is needed for an agent to use it 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by stating that the 'include_clips' parameter controls optional inclusion of clip metadata. This clarifies the parameter's effect beyond the schema's type and default. However, there is a slight mismatch: parameter name suggests including clips, while description says 'clip metadata'.

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 returns the recursive media-pool bin tree, optionally including clip metadata. The verb 'Return' and resource 'media-pool bin tree' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like 'inspect_clip' or 'list_clips'.

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?

The description implies usage when the hierarchical tree structure of the media pool is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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