open_in_source

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, and it fails entirely. It does not state what the operation does, whether it requires a prior selection, what occurs on invocation, side effects, or prerequisites. The phrase 'expanded operation' actively obscures rather than reveals behavior.

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 short but this is under-specification, not conciseness. The sentence wastes its limited space on the meaningless prefix 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' rather than delivering any factual content. Like the 'process' calibration example, minimal length without information earns a 2.

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 an operation in a large Premiere Pro tool family with 0 params, 0 annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It should explain what the source operation entails, what object it acts on, and any prerequisites or side effects — none of which are present.

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, so per the baseline rule for param-free tools, a score of 4 applies. There is no parameter burden for the description to carry.

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: open in source' is essentially tautological — the operative content 'open in source' restates the tool name with zero added specificity. The phrase 'expanded operation' is boilerplate filler with no informative value, and it never clarifies what gets opened (a clip? selected media?) or what 'source' refers to (presumably the source monitor, but this is never stated).

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 is provided on when to use this tool. This is especially problematic given the dense cluster of sibling tools (close_source_monitor, insert_from_source, overwrite_from_source, play_source_monitor, get_source_monitor_info) — the description does nothing to distinguish when opening in source is appropriate versus using those alternatives.

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