inspect_dom_object

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully describes the behavioral profile. The description adds context about listing properties, methods, and values, but this is additional detail rather than essential behavioral disclosure.

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 followed by well-structured examples. Every word is useful, and the examples are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear. No wasted content.

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 has no output schema, but the description implies the return of properties, methods, and values. The examples give a good intuition. For a debugging tool, this is sufficiently complete, though additional detail on return format could be helpful.

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%, with both 'object_path' and 'max_depth' clearly described. The description does not add new parameter details beyond examples; however, the examples demonstrate usage patterns. Baseline 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 explicitly states 'Inspect a Premiere Pro DOM object and list its properties, methods, and values,' providing a specific verb and resource. The examples further clarify the scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform specific edits or queries.

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 says 'Useful for exploring the API and debugging,' which implies its usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list includes many specific tools, so the differentiation is clear.

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