get_used_media_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It describes the output contents (source files, counts, tracks, offline status) but omits important behavioral traits like read-only nature, performance implications (potentially expensive for large sequences), or error scenarios (e.g., when sequence_id is invalid).

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and concisely details the report's contents without any redundant or extraneous 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of a single optional parameter with no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned data. However, it lacks details on pagination, performance limits, or potential errors, which would enhance completeness for an AI agent.

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 input schema fully describes the single parameter (sequence_id) with a clear explanation: 'Sequence name or ID. Uses active sequence if omitted.' The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score.

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's purpose: generating a report of all media files used in a sequence, specifying details like source files, usage count, tracks, and offline status. It effectively distinguishes itself from related tools like get_unused_media.

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 implies usage for auditing media usage within a sequence but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_unused_media or check_offline_media. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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