Inspect Stabilizer Status

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds a key behavioral guarantee: unknown or localized host values are left unknown rather than misreported as solved. This directly informs agent expectations and complements the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations. 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?

Two tightly written sentences lead with the action and scope, then state the read-only/unknown-value caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the subject, scope, output semantics, and conservative behavior. No important calling context 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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter, node_id, is fully described ('Optional clip node ID. Omit to inspect every video clip in the active sequence.'). The description's 'one clip or every video clip' phrasing adds no meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

Description names a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('Warp Stabilizer presence, exposed status properties, and conservative analysis state'), and scope ('one clip or every video clip in the active sequence'). This clearly distinguishes it from stabilizing/write operations like stabilize_clip.

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?

Provides clear usage context: it can target a specific clip via node_id or all video clips when omitted, and it is explicitly read-only. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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