reels_get

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, closed-world, non-destructive read, so the safety burden is covered. The description contributes the meaningful behavioral hint that the full document should only be fetched on explicit request, favoring minimal retrieval. It does not say what the compact form contains versus the full form, nor whether the result is paginated or truncated.

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, and the three outcomes are enumerated in escalating cost order. The trailing "on explicit request" is slightly ambiguous in what it modifies, which is the only blemish.

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 and zero schema description coverage, the description does the important work of describing the three response modes, which is the main thing an agent needs. It still leaves parameter interactions and the difference between compact and full content unspecified, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the semantics, and it partially does by mapping the three modes onto the parameters: full → complete document, shotId → one full shot, otherwise the compact list. It never explains the projectId scope, the boolean default, the shotId pattern, or the precedence when full and shotId are both supplied.

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 names a specific verb (get) and three concrete output shapes: a compact shot list, one full shot, or the complete document. That is enough for an agent to know what it retrieves, but it never states the resource being fetched (a reel/project document) nor distinguishes itself from siblings like reels_list, reels_preview, or reels_timeline.

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?

"On explicit request" implicitly steers the agent toward the cheapest mode and away from over-fetching, which is useful implied guidance. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions, so the agent must infer that reels_list or reels_preview cover other cases.

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