get_source_monitor_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires an active Premiere connection, what state assumptions exist (e.g., is a source monitor already open?), or what side effects might occur. The phrase 'expanded operation' is opaque and gives no insight into operation semantics.

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 one sentence, but it is padded with the generic 'Premiere Pro expanded operation:' prefix, which is misleadingly vacuous. It wastes tokens on a template phrase that could be dropped, leaving just the tool name repeated. True conciseness would be a self-contained 'Gets current source monitor information.'

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?

The tool is part of a large sibling set with several source-monitor-related tools (get_source_monitor_position, play_source_monitor, open_in_source, close_source_monitor). Without annotations or an output schema, the description should clarify what 'source monitor info' includes and how it differs from position queries. The description is far too thin to support correct invocation, especially given the complexity of the Premiere Pro environment.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, as there are no properties to describe). The description adds nothing about parameters, but there is nothing to add. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 says 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: get source monitor info.' The verb is 'get' and the resource is 'source monitor info', but 'expanded operation' is vague and doesn't clarify what exactly is retrieved. This phrasing reads like a generic template label ('Premiere Pro expanded operation:') followed by the tool name, providing minimal distinguishing information from siblings like get_source_monitor_position.

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. It doesn't mention when it should be preferred over related tools like get_source_monitor_position or close_source_monitor, and there is no context about prerequisites or typical scenarios. The description is purely declarative with no usage context.

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