Inspect Sequence Review Report

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: media paths are never returned, marker comments require explicit opt-in, and the report stops short of proving certain quality or rights aspects. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: the first lists the report contents, the second states privacy and opt-in constraints, the third states what the report does not prove. No word is wasted and the most important facts are front-loaded.

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 output schema exists, annotations carry the safety profile, and the description covers contents, privacy constraints, and false-confidence limits, the tool is well specified. An agent can decide whether to call it and what to expect without hidden surprises.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters well. The description reinforces the marker-comment opt-in behavior, matching include_marker_comments, but adds little new parameter-level meaning 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 states a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('sequence handoff report') and enumerates the exact report contents: timeline structure, primary-track gaps, disabled clips, muted tracks, marker timing, and offline-source evidence. This precise enumeration distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like get_timeline_summary or get_offline_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 provides clear when-not-to-use boundaries by stating what the tool does not prove (rendered pixels, audio quality, caption correctness, rights, editorial approval) and what it never returns (media paths). It does not name explicit alternative tools, but the exclusions give meaningful usage guidance.

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