get_linked_items

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

With no annotations and no description of side effects, permissions, or return behavior, the tool provides zero behavioral transparency. The agent has no idea whether this is a read-only inspection or a mutation, or what operational constraints apply.

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 conciseness is about appropriately sized, front-loaded content that earns its place. This one-liner provides no substantive information, so it is under-specified rather than concise.

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, no annotations, and a vague one-line description, the tool is completely inadequate for an agent to understand its purpose, behavior, or invocation context, especially compared to sibling tools with richer descriptions.

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 baseline is 4 per the rubric. The schema is empty and the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics; however, the description also fails to add any contextual meaning about the tool's scope, but this dimension is about input parameters only.

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 linked items' merely restates the tool name without any elaboration on what 'linked items' means, what the tool does, or how it differs from siblings like get_clip_links or get_sequence_structure. It is a tautology with no verb+resource specificity.

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 context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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