Plan Shot Match

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

The description explicitly claims 'Read-only planning only', but the annotations set readOnlyHint to false, which indicates the operation is not guaranteed to be read-only. This is a direct contradiction between the description and structured metadata. Although the description does add useful limitation context, the contradiction undermines trust and must be flagged.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the operation and outputs, and the second adds essential scoping and limitation information. There is no filler, and every clause earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists and the input schema fully documents all four parameters, the description provides enough context about purpose, outputs, and limitations. It is slightly incomplete because it does not name a sibling alternative, and the read-only contradiction creates a gap in behavioral context.

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 parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 verb ('Compare') and resource ('two bounded local-media frame samples'), and it states the concrete outputs: measured waveform/parade/saturation deltas and coarse correction directions. It also clarifies that the tool is planning-only and does not grade Premiere, which sets it apart from color-correction tools like color_correct or apply_lut.

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 gives clear context: use this for read-only planning comparisons between two local frame samples, not for applying grades or grading in Premiere. It does not name an explicit alternative tool, but the stated limitations ('does not grade Premiere', 'does not claim primaries alone can match') give useful when-not-to-use guidance.

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