view_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious facts: the output is one IMAGE carrying sequence timestamps, and the CEP bridge must be running. It does not state cost, latency, or whether the frames require rendering, but the prerequisite and return shape are the important unknowns here.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action in caps, then usage, then the prerequisite. Tight and well ordered. The parenthetical examples (hook, section, title overlay) are mildly redundant but do ground the abstraction.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly supplies the return format (a single image with timestamps) and the runtime prerequisite. Combined with 100%-covered parameters, an agent has nearly everything needed. Missing only edge behavior such as limits on range length or failure modes when the bridge is down.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so start, end, frames, width and sequenceId are already documented in the schema. The description adds the concept of a review range and the timestamped image but no units, defaults, or constraint detail beyond what the schema supplies. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it exports frames from a range of a Premiere sequence and returns them as a single image with timestamps. The framing 'SEE the edit itself' cleanly separates it from data-returning siblings, but it never names the nearby alternatives (view_clip, view_moment, capture_frame, export_frame), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use condition: review what you just built (hook, section, title overlay) and fix problems before declaring completion. That is a clear, actionable context. It stops short of exclusions or naming an alternative when a single frame rather than a range is wanted, so it is not a 5.

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