get_storyboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the returned plan carries scene-to-media assignments, which is mild but real context; nothing about resolution failures or what 'saved' implies.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is short for good and bad reasons — no waste, but also no elaboration.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. Still missing is any guidance on the id parameter's provenance and how this differs from the preview sibling, leaving the agent with an incomplete decision picture.

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 0% and the sole parameter storyboard_id is never mentioned in the description. The name is self-explanatory, but there is no compensation for the missing schema documentation (e.g. that it must reference an existing saved storyboard).

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 verb 'read' plus 'saved plan and its scene-to-media choices' conveys retrieval of a persisted storyboard, but it never uses the word 'storyboard' and gives no basis for distinguishing it from siblings like preview_storyboard or get_video_results. Purpose is inferable, not precise.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus preview_storyboard (preview) or search_media (find media). The agent must guess that this is the lookup-by-id path.

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