Plan Shot Match

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

The description says 'Read-only planning only; it does not grade Premiere or claim that primaries alone can match the shots.' This adds critical behavioral context: it's a non-destructive, advisory tool. However, annotations include readOnlyHint: false, which seems contradictory—the tool is described as read-only but annotation says not read-only. This inconsistency undermines transparency.

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 action and followed by an important scope disclaimer. 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 the tool's complexity (comparison analysis), the description covers the essential what and the read-only caveat. With an output schema present, it needn't explain return values. The only gap is that it doesn't clarify the contradiction with annotations or provide more operational context, but it's largely complete.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'bounded local-media frame samples' but adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resources: 'Compare two bounded local-media frame samples and return measured waveform/parade/saturation deltas plus coarse correction directions.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like match_frame or color_correct by emphasizing measurement and planning rather than execution. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of 5.

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 implies usage for shot matching analysis but doesn't specify when to use this tool instead of alternatives like match_frame or color_correct. No explicit when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent to infer context.

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