Inspect Edit Readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds value by noting it runs as 'one read-only bridge request' (single round-trip, no mutation) and by delimiting what it structurally inspects versus judges. It stops short of describing severity thresholds or response shape.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the enumerated checks, followed by the scope limitation. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, all parameters are documented and optional, and annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing essential 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% with three optional, well-documented parameters (track, gap tolerance, max scale). The description adds no syntax or interpretation beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific verb (Audit) and resource (the active sequence) and enumerates the exact checks it performs — empty timelines, primary-track gaps, disabled clips, muted tracks, excessive Motion scale. This is far more specific than a generic audit, though it never distinguishes itself from look-alike siblings such as audit_timeline_health or get_timeline_gaps.

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?

Gives clear scope boundaries: 'structural diagnostics only; it cannot judge story, framing, sound, or final delivery' tells the agent when this tool is not appropriate. It does not name an alternative tool for the cases it excludes, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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