compare_timelines

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. It clearly states the operation is non-destructive ('without changing the active timeline') and defines the exact scope of comparison, including exclusions like pixels, Fusion graphs, grades, and Fairlight. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but for a read-only comparison this is a strong disclosure.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and safety guarantee; the second efficiently clarifies scope and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only comparison tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, non-destructive behavior, comparison scope, and exclusions. The only significant gap is parameter-level semantics (ID vs name format for original/preview), but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 2 undocumented parameters. It adds meaning by saying comparison is 'by unique ID or exact name' and names the parameters 'original' and 'preview,' but it does not specify which parameter accepts an ID versus a name, what format is expected, or how exact-name matching works. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('two timelines'), and adds precise scoping: 'by unique ID or exact name without changing the active timeline.' This distinguishes it from other timeline-related sibling tools like timeline_overview, preview_timeline, or set_playhead.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: comparing two timelines and getting structural/property/marker changes. It also explicitly states what the tool does not compare, which helps avoid misuse, though it does not name alternative sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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