get_unused_media

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'get unused media'. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or follows a specific policy, whether it includes only metadata or also physical media bytes, whether it permanently deletes/moves media from bins, or whether it depends on project state/sequence state. The behavior is opaque beyond the verb 'get'.

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?

One sentence, concise and no wasted words. However, it includes no operational detail, qualification like 'bin' vs 'project', or expected output summary. Size is acceptable but under-specification limits the score from being higher.

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 description is minimal for a 0-parameter tool: it does not explain the return value shape or type, does not name or contrast any sibling/alternative tools, does not mention required media type, project state, or prerequisites. Sibling tools with much richer descriptions (e.g., get_used_media_report, list_project_items) cover overlapping territory, increasing the need for better context.

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 input schema is 100% covered with variable names/string constraints but it declares zero parameters. The description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 from complete schema coverage; no credit beyond schema is earned because 'unused media' is not elaborated.

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?

Description 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: get unused media' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what counts as 'unused' (unused in the project? unreferenced clips? media in bins?), what filtering/return behavior to expect, or how the result is structured. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_used_media_report, get_offline_media, or list_project_items beyond the narrow 'unused' scope.

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 call this vs alternatives. It does not name sibling tools, describe whether 'unused' means media not referenced by any sequence/project item, or mention whether a project must be open or any required context (e.g., workspace/sequence loaded).

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