get_source_monitor_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, whether it affects the state of Premiere Pro, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for any tool, and 'expanded operation' is purely opaque.

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 this is under-specification, not conciseness. The phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is filler that adds no information. A helpful description would be compact but still convey purpose, behavior, and usage context.

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 simplicity of the tool, a one-sentence description could suffice if it were informative. However, this description omits entirely what the returned position means, whether it is relative to the source monitor playhead, and how it relates to other source-monitor operations. Without an output schema or return-value documentation, the agent has no way to use the result 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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter syntax or semantics. The schema already confirms no required parameters. However, the description adds no value even here; the baseline of 4 is justified because there is nothing to compensate for, but the tool's parameter behavior is not explicitly 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 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: get source monitor position' is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'position' refers to (e.g., playhead, cursor, window position) and fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_source_monitor_info'. The phrase 'expanded operation' is vague and adds no clarity.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to prefer other source-monitor tools. The description gives the agent no context for selecting this tool.

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