inspect_dom_object

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: inspect dom object.' It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what side effects it might have, what it returns, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely manipulates internal state.

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 very short, which is efficient, but it is under-specified rather than concise in a helpful way. The phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is boilerplate and the rest is too terse to earn its place; a single vague sentence is not sufficient.

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 tool with no annotation, no output schema, and an ambiguous input schema, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not explain the concept of 'dom object', expected input/output, or how it fits into the broader Premiere Pro workflow. This leaves an AI agent without essential information to invoke it 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 is unusual: it declares an object with additionalProperties allowed and propertyNames constrained to strings, effectively accepting arbitrary key-value pairs. The description provides no explanation of what parameters are expected or how to structure them, so it does not compensate for the schema's lack of named properties or descriptions.

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 'inspect dom object', which gives a verb and resource but is vague: it doesn't clarify what 'dom object' refers to in Premiere Pro, what inspecting entails, or what the output is. It fails to distinguish from many sibling query tools like get_premiere_state or get_sequence_structure.

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 vs alternatives. There is no indication of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description offers zero context for an agent to decide to call this over any other inspection tool.

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