cutbolt_timeline_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the response contract ('Returns a text summary and findings; ok means no warnings or errors'), which annotations cannot express. It does not, however, describe performance cost on large timelines or how findings are ordered/limited.

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?

Dense but well front-loaded: the core action leads, the check list follows, and the return contract closes. It is a single long sentence with no wasted filler, though the enumeration makes it dense enough to skim poorly.

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 read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers purpose, activated checks, optional-input conditions, and the shape of the return value. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the absence of guidance on alternatives and result volume keeps it short of a 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal param meaning beyond the schema, mainly linking input_root to missing/changed media checks and transcripts to cut-word detection, which the schema descriptions already imply.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and scope ('Find likely mistakes without rendering') and then enumerates the exact classes of problems detected (flash frames, drift, jump cuts, black/silent stretches, disabled-track clips, unused assets, missing media, cut words). This is clearly a static validation tool, distinguishable from sibling tools like cutbolt_media_inspect or cutbolt_run.

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 is implied rather than stated: the parentheticals '(with input_root)' and '(with transcripts)' tell the agent which checks activate when optional inputs are supplied, which is useful conditional context. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over cutbolt_media_inspect, cutbolt_run, or a session-based check, nor any prerequisites beyond the required project snapshot.

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