get_source_monitor_info

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

The description implies a read-only operation but lacks details on what information is returned. With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden but only partially fulfills it. It is not misleading, but more specifics on behavior or output would improve clarity.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. No unnecessary words.

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 description does not explain what information is returned (no output schema) or any prerequisites. Given the low complexity of a no-parameter getter, it is minimally adequate but could be improved with more details on return value.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds context by specifying the clip is 'currently loaded in the Source Monitor', which adds meaning beyond the schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 clearly states the tool gets information about the clip in the Source Monitor. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('clip currently loaded in the Source Monitor'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform other source monitor actions or retrieve different clip details.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_clip_properties or get_full_clip_info. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., clip must be loaded) or exclude cases where it should not be used.

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