Inspect Dom Object

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is met; the description adds the accepted-path grammar ('starting with app or qe (identifiers and numeric indexes only)') and the failure mode for unsupported input. It does not discuss depth cost or response size behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

Front-loaded purpose in sentence one, then the constraint and the alternative, then short examples that each earn their place. No filler or repetition.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, path grammar, rejection behavior, and the alternative tool. An agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the object_path constraints already in the schema and adds illustrative path examples, but says nothing about max_depth or the depth/verbosity tradeoff, so it adds only marginal meaning.

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 ('Inspect a Premiere Pro DOM object and list its properties, methods, and values') and immediately draws a boundary against the sibling evaluate_expression. Concrete path examples make it unambiguous for an agent scanning sibling tools.

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?

Gives use context ('exploring the API and debugging'), an explicit when-not rule (function calls, operators, and statements are rejected), and names the alternative tool (evaluate_expression with unsafe-script). It stops short of stating prerequisites like connection state, but routing guidance is clear.

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