inspect_dom_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but reveals nothing about side effects, return format, auth requirements, or failure modes. The unexplained 'expanded operation' phrase adds confusion rather than transparency, as it's unclear what 'expanded' means in this context.

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 a single short, front-loaded sentence that is quick to parse. However, the phrase 'Premier Pro expanded operation' is filler that wastes the limited space and reads like a template remnant rather than earned content; this is under-specification rather than effective brevity.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description still fails to convey what happens on invocation—what is returned, what valid inputs (if any) the internal object works on, or when it would return an error. The absence of an output schema makes the missing behavioral disclosure especially damaging in guiding an agent.

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 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve—under the rubric, this yields a baseline of 4. No additional parameter semantics are likely needed.

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 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: inspect dom object' is essentially a verbatim restatement of the tool name, making it tautological. It never clarifies what 'DOM' refers to in the Premiere context, what object is being inspected, or what inspecting yields. The only reason it's not a 1 is that 'inspect' does imply a read/introspection operation.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 200+ siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where inspecting a DOM object is preferred over tools like `get_premiere_state`, `execute_extendscript`, or `get_full_project_overview`.

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