Read the user's saved editing style—pause-cut tightness, audio chain, default look, saved looks, and notes learned from edits—before planning a rough cut that matches their preferences.
The user's saved editing style: pause-cut tightness, audio chain, default look, saved looks and notes learned from their edits. Read this before a rough cut.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read this' implies a non-mutating lookup and the content list hints at the return payload, but it never states that it is side-effect free, requires no permissions, or what shape the data comes back in. Adequate but with real gaps for an unannotated tool.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler: the first enumerates the returned style components, the second gives the timing cue. The content list is front-loaded and every clause 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?
There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return, and it does so by naming the style facets the agent will receive. What's missing is the response format (structured object vs prose summary), which matters slightly given no output schema 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.
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?
Specific verb (read/get) and resource (the user's saved editing style), with an enumeration of what the style contains: pause-cut tightness, audio chain, default look, saved looks and learned notes. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_style or apply_look, though 'Read this' implies the non-mutating counterpart.
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?
States a clear when-to-use: 'Read this before a rough cut,' which tells the agent the exact point in the workflow to call it. No exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.