Inspect Stabilizer Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the baseline is lower. The description still adds useful behavioral context: unknown or localized host values remain unknown rather than being reported as solved. That is a non-obvious reporting convention beyond the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, followed by the read-only behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no waste or repetition.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context: what is inspected, over what scope, and how unknown values are handled. It could be slightly richer by naming when to choose it over sibling tools, but it is complete for correct invocation.

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%, and the single optional parameter node_id is fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the same scope (one clip or every video clip), but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific read verb, the exact resource (Warp Stabilizer), and the exact fields inspected (presence, exposed status properties, conservative analysis state) plus scope (one clip or every video clip in the active sequence). It distinguishes itself from the sibling stabilize_clip by being explicitly read-only. An agent can tell what this tool reports without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a clear scope for the operation, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as stabilize_clip or other inspection tools. The usage context is implied by 'Read' and 'inspect' but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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