Inspect Cmx3600 Edl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that parsing occurs 'without importing it into Premiere', reinforcing non-mutating behavior. It does not disclose other traits like error handling or file access specifics, but given the annotation coverage, the bar is met at a basic level.

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, tightly constructed sentence with no filler. The verb and primary subject are front-loaded, and every element (facts list, import exclusion) earns its place.

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?

With a simple single-parameter schema, an existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully conveys the tool's purpose and constraints. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when to call it.

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 provides 100% coverage with the description 'Existing local .edl file', which is clear. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Parse'), a precise resource ('local CMX 3600 EDL'), and enumerates the output facts (event, reel, track, transition, timecode). It explicitly says 'without importing it into Premiere', which distinguishes it from import-related tools and clarifies its non-destructive nature.

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 inspection without import, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like validate_cmx3600_edl or compare_cmx3600_edls. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions, though the contrast with import is helpful.

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