open_in_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral effects. It only says 'open in source' and does not disclose what happens if no clip is selected, whether it replaces the current source monitor content, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs a state-changing operation.

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 short (one sentence) but includes the filler phrase 'expanded operation' which adds no value. It is concise in length but not in meaning, lacking essential details while including unnecessary wording.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'open in source' means, the expected outcome, or any conditions or limitations. A tool with no params could still benefit from a clear statement like 'Opens the selected clip in the source monitor.'

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?

Parameter count is 0, so per rubric the baseline is 4. The schema has no properties, and the description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist.

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 action ('open in source') in the context of Premiere Pro, which likely refers to opening a clip in the source monitor. However, the phrase 'expanded operation' is vague filler and the description does not explicitly mention 'source monitor' or what exactly is opened, leaving room for ambiguity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings are close_source_monitor, get_source_monitor_info, and play_source_monitor, but the description does not differentiate or explain the intended use case.

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