get_source_monitor_info

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

With no annotations and no behavioral disclosure in the description, the agent is left completely blind about side effects, return value, or whether the operation is read-only. 'Expanded operation' hints at something non-standard but provides no concrete 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 extremely short, but brevity comes at the cost of substance. 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is wasted words and the core descriptive content is just a restatement of the tool name. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and the presence of many similar source-monitor tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not clarify what 'info' means, whether it returns the loaded clip, playhead position, or other data, leaving a significant gap in context.

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 the schema covers all parameter information by default. The description adds nothing about parameters, but with none present, there is little to explain. The baseline of 4 is appropriate, though the odd schema allowing additionalProperties is not clarified.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'get source monitor info' adds no clarifying detail beyond the name itself. The phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is vague filler and does not specify what aspect of the source monitor is being retrieved or how it differs from sibling tools like get_source_monitor_position.

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 versus alternatives such as get_source_monitor_position, play_source_monitor, or open_in_source. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when it should be avoided.

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