Get Next Edit Point

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the playhead-relative anchoring context but says nothing about boundary behavior or edge cases, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotations.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and the key scoping constraint (playhead position) immediately.

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 an output schema present and full annotation and parameter coverage, the description need not explain return values. It is nearly complete, though it omits what happens at sequence boundaries when no further edit point exists.

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 100% and both parameters are enums with defaults documented in the schema, so the schema carries the semantics. The description echoes the direction choice ('next or previous') but adds no format or behavior detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 gives a specific verb ('Find') plus resource ('next or previous edit point') and clarifies the domain concept as a clip boundary located from the playhead. It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from related siblings such as move_playhead_to_edit or navigate_playhead.

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?

Usage is implied by 'from the playhead position', telling the agent this is a query anchored to the current playhead, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives.

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