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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses nothing: not whether invocation is read-only, what it returns, whether it requires a project context, or what 'can be placed' implies operationally. The phrase 'can be placed' weakly hints these are usable resources, but no concrete behavior is stated.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate size-wise. However, its brevity comes from under-specification rather than from an efficient statement of a complete idea.

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 parameterless tool the description is the only source of meaning, yet the agent learns neither the return shape nor what invocation does. With no output schema and no annotations, the fragment leaves the core behavior undefined.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema is consistent with the description, which also implies no inputs.

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 text is a noun fragment ('Media in the project that can be placed') with no verb, so the agent cannot tell whether the tool lists, retrieves, or selects assets. It adds a qualifier beyond the name 'assets' but does not distinguish this tool from siblings help, show, and run.

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 when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative is mentioned. There is no indication of how 'assets' relates to 'show' or 'run', so the agent must guess when this tool is the right choice.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether output is a plain list, formatted usage text, or per-command detail. It is a low-risk read-only style tool, but with zero annotation coverage the absence of any output/behavior statement is a real gap.

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?

A single short sentence fragment with no padding, and the key content is stated immediately. It loses a point only because the fragment lacks a verb, making it terse to the point of grammatical incompleteness rather than efficiently structured.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of information, and it leaves the return shape and scope of 'every cocut command' unexplained. For a discovery/help entry point that agents rely on to route to the right tool, this is under-specified.

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 schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of 'selector flags' is content of the help output, not an input, so it adds no parameter meaning either way.

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 fragment names the resource content ('every cocut command and the selector flags') but supplies no verb, so it is unclear whether the tool lists command names, prints usage text, or returns documentation. 'Selector flags' and 'cocut command' are undefined jargon that the agent cannot resolve from this definition or its siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the siblings 'show', 'assets', or 'run'. A help tool is largely self-explanatory, but nothing here confirms that this is the discovery entry point or when an agent should prefer it over just invoking a command directly.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that arbitrary commands are executed, but does not mention side effects, whether commands can modify or destroy project state, permissions required, output format, or error behavior. Examples like 'undo' and 'split' imply mutation but safety context is absent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by illustrative examples. The single sentence with examples is efficient, though the inline examples make it slightly denser than necessary.

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 generic command executor with no output schema, the description explains command formatting and points to `help`. However, it omits return-value behavior, error handling, and safety context, leaving gaps an agent would need to infer or test.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and already describes the single `command` parameter. The description adds meaningful value with concrete examples of command syntax ('text ...', 'set size+=4 ...', 'undo'), clarifying format beyond the schema's minimal description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run any cocut command'. The examples clarify the scope of commands. It points to the `help` sibling for command help, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from `show` or `assets` beyond the generic execution role.

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?

Usage is implied through examples and the note to omit the leading 'cocut'. The 'See `help`' pointer routes agents to a sibling for command help, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use `run` versus `show` or `assets`.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says what data is shown and to call it first; it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires permissions, or any side effects.

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 two short fragments with no wasted words. It front-loads the resource and then adds the ordering instruction.

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 simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives the return contents and usage order. It remains incomplete on behavioral traits such as read-only safety and return format, which leaves gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 names the resource ('the timeline') and its contents ('tracks, clip ids and times'), so an agent can tell it surfaces timeline data. However, it provides no verb and does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as help, assets, or run.

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 phrase 'Call this first' gives explicit ordering guidance, indicating this tool should be invoked before others. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sequencing context is clear.

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