get_used_media_report

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not disclose whether this operation is read-only, whether it requires a project to be open, what side effects occur, or what the output looks like. The name implies a read operation but this is never verified.

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 minimal—a single fragment-like sentence (26 words), which is under-specification rather than conciseness. No structure is offered to clarify scope, triggers, or output.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this vs siblings like get_unused_media, get_duplicate_media, get_offline_media. No prerequisites (open project), no output contract, no named inputs. Despite no annotations, the description carries all responsibility and provides nothing.

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 schema defines no parameters (0 parameters) yet oddly has a propertyNames constraint that would permit arbitrary string-keyed properties slant to any value. This is unexplained and could confuse an agent into thinking parameters exist or are optional/free-form.

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 used media report' only tells the agent that this tool generates some kind of used-media report in Premiere Pro. It does not specify what 'used media' includes (e.g., clips referenced in sequences), how the report is delivered, or whether it filters by project/sequence. It is marginally more informative than the name but lacks operational detail, and the 'expanded operation' prefix adds no semantic value.

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 choose this tool over siblings like get_unused_media_report, get_duplicate_media, or get_offline_media. There's no description of invocation context, prerequisites (e.g., open project), or exclusions.

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