screenstudio_check_pacing

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish this is a safe, non-destructive read, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It contributes that the tool reads the open editor's live state and conditionally applies recipe/off-recipe rules, but says nothing about the response shape or the impact of the mode switch beyond that.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the first sentence is a single mega-clause stuffed with a long parenthetical checklist. Most items earn their place as scannable criteria, yet the structure is dense and could be broken up for readability.

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 6-parameter tool with nested objects, no output schema, and only 33% schema coverage, the description covers the function and the recipe interaction reasonably but never describes what a 'judgment' returns or how issues are surfaced. Annotations cover safety, but the output/result gap keeps this at minimum-viable.

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 low (33%), so the description must carry more weight. It clarifies the relationship among recipe, recipeOverrides, and brand (overrides 'merge into the recipe's'; brand is 'you planned with'), which is genuinely additive, but projectPath, sceneId, and style's behavior beyond the enum remain undocumented.

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 ('judge/check') and resource ('a timeline') are stated, and the description concretizes the scope with a specific list of pacing/look concerns (zooms, rates, choppy cuts, speed ramps, cropping, flicker). It reads as a distinct pacing-review tool, but it never names or contrasts with siblings like screenstudio_analyze, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 only implied: 'With recipe (plus the recipeOverrides and brand you planned with)' hints at a precondition, and 'Uses the open editor's live state when available' gives context. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no named alternative, so guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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