inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden; 'Snapshot' strongly implies a read-only operation and the description details exactly what is covered, including the media filtering behavior. It stops short of explicitly stating there are no side effects or providing error behaviors, but for this tool type it is reasonably transparent.

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 compact, front-loaded sentences: first gives the overall purpose and scope, second defines the optional parameter. There is no filler or repetition of the schema default.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter inspection tool with an output schema, the description covers what will be snapshotted and the meaning of the media argument. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name and default, while the description adds complete meaning for the only parameter: media accepts 'current' (current bin) or 'all' (entire pool). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses 'Snapshot' as a specific verb and enumerates the scope: app, project, current timeline (tracks, items, markers), and media pool. It clearly indicates this is a broad state-inspection tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling query tools like markers_query or clip_metadata_get.

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?

Usage context is implied by the word 'Snapshot' and the broad resource list, suggesting it is the tool to call for overall state visibility. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as markers_query for marker detail.

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