Audit Timeline Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, and the description adds concrete guarantees: 'Local-only' and 'never changes Premiere.' It also discloses output shape (score, timecoded findings, fix routes), which helps the agent set expectations beyond the annotation flags.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then packs the audit categories and output. No filler or repetition of schema content; every clause adds information.

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?

The tool is complex with a nested snapshot object, 7 parameters, and an output schema, but the description covers the main behavior, categories, and guarantees. With rich input and output schemas present, nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters and nested snapshot shapes. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the rubric baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Audit'), a precise resource ('one sequence snapshot'), and enumerates the full set of checks it performs (flash frames, gaps, overlaps, disabled clips, etc.). This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like diff_sequence_snapshots or get_timeline_gaps without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context: use this when you have a sequence snapshot and need a read-only health audit with a score, findings, and fix routes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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