Read a scene timeline

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reports that the operation opens a view, exposes a performance tradeoff for with_media_ids, and states that no credits are consumed. It does not cover failure modes, but the additional context is meaningful.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action and output are stated first, followed by the optional parameter behavior and cost detail. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

For a two-parameter inspection tool with an output schema, the description covers the key context: what it reports, the optional flag's effect, and the cost. The main gap is explicit guidance on choosing it over related sibling tools, but that is not critical for basic invocation.

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_media_ids is well explained: it makes the tool read each clip's media id and is slower. scene_url is left to inference from its name and URI format, so the description only partially compensates for the 0% schema description 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 clearly specifies the action: open a Scene Builder view and report clips by index and duration, total length, and rendering status. This is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like flow_screenshot or flow_generate_video.

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 purpose is clear enough to infer when it should be used, and the description notes that with_media_ids is slower and that the operation costs no credits. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as flow_status or flow_inspect, nor does it state when not to use it.

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