get_linked_items

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not disclose what 'expanded' means, whether it is a read operation with side effects, or what the return structure is.

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 extremely short but lacks substance. It is under-specified, offering only a rephrased tool name rather than informative content.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, this description is grossly insufficient. It gives no context about the return value, use cases, or differentiation from sibling tools, making it inadequate for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 input schema has no defined parameters (additionalProperties allows arbitrary keys). With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. However, it also fails to clarify the accepted input shape if any.

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 merely restates the tool name ('get linked items') with the generic prefix 'Premiere Pro expanded operation,' adding no specific action scope or detail. It fails to clarify what 'linked items' refers to or distinguish it from similar tools like get_clip_links, making it essentially tautological.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_clip_links or get_item_info, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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