get_media_pool_structure

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

No annotations provided; the description only restates parameter defaults (max_depth, max_clips) already in the schema. Does not disclose performance implications, read-only nature, or potential large responses despite having an output schema.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence plus parameter list. No superfluous words, but additional context (e.g., return structure) is missing.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 optional parameters, no required fields, output schema exists), the description minimally covers the purpose and basic constraints. However, it lacks any note on performance or that it might return large data, leaving some completeness gaps.

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 description merely repeats parameter names and defaults from the schema without adding semantic context (e.g., what values are valid, how max_depth affects recursion, or the meaning of limiting clips per folder). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate.

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 states the tool retrieves the folder/clip structure of the media pool, using the verb 'get' and specifying the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_current_timeline_info or get_project_info.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_project_info for project-level data, or import_media for adding files). Lacks explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations.

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