project_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what it inspects, notes that gaps and disabled tracks may be intentional (avoiding misinterpretation), and states it does not inspect Fairlight automation. It implies read-only behavior via 'inspect' but does not explicitly say so, which is a minor 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?

Three sentences with no fluff: main purpose first, then optional comparison, then caveats. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easily scannable.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description addresses the main inspection areas, the optional comparison, and important caveats (intentional gaps, no Fairlight automation). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to call it, though it could mention any prerequisites like an open project.

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. It does by explaining that the optional expected_width/expected_height/expected_frame_rate parameters are for comparing timeline resolution/rate against delivery requirements. It doesn't detail each parameter individually, but their names and the comparison context are sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('active-timeline') with clear targets: missing sources, gaps, disabled/locked tracks and clips. It distinguishes itself from siblings like timeline_overview or timeline_audio, and the optional delivery-requirement comparison further scopes its purpose.

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?

It provides clear context: use this to inspect timeline health issues, optionally compare against delivery requirements, and it warns that gaps and disabled tracks can be intentional. It explicitly excludes Fairlight automation, but does not name alternative tools for that need, so guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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