Inspect Sequence Review Report

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: media paths are never returned, marker comments require explicit opt-in, and the report does not validate rendered pixels, audio, captions, rights, or editorial approval.

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 front-loaded, using three tight sentences: what the report contains, privacy/opt-in constraints, and validation limits. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

For a report tool with an output schema, rich annotations, and fully documented parameters, the description covers the report's components, privacy behavior, and scope limitations. It is nearly complete, though it could better connect the tool to sibling alternatives for an agent choosing among inspection tools.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a general privacy note that marker comments require explicit opt-in, which overlaps with the schema's explanation of include_marker_comments defaulting to false, without adding syntax or default details beyond the schema.

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 names a specific artifact, a read-only sequence handoff report, and enumerates the evidence it contains: timeline structure, primary-track gaps, disabled clips, muted tracks, marker timing, and offline-source evidence. This distinguishes it from generic timeline inspectors, but it does not explicitly name or compare against sibling tools like audit_timeline_health or get_timeline_summary.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'handoff report' framing and reinforced by the disclaimer that it does not prove rendered pixels, audio quality, caption correctness, rights, or editorial approval. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives among the many sibling inspection tools.

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