get_source_monitor_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: no side-effect claim, no read-only statement, no return-value shape, no error or state requirements. The "get" prefix weakly implies a read operation, but the description itself contributes no behavioral context beyond what the tool name already suggests.

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 text is one short sentence, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the sentence contains zero content beyond restating the tool name. The boilerplate prefix "Premiere Pro expanded operation" fills the slot that should have held an actual explanation, so the sentence has not earned its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description was the only place to reveal what "info" means, and it does not. An agent cannot predict the return shape (current clip? in/out points? playhead position? zoom?), making the tool a black box. The sibling get_source_monitor_position demonstrates how much more specific this tool's definition could and should have been.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4 — there is nothing meaningful for the description to add. Schema coverage is trivially 100% since the schema defines no parameters, though the additionalProperties:true flag technically leaves the input open, which is a minor structural concern rather than a description failure.

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 "get source monitor info" is essentially the tool name with underscores replaced by spaces — a tautology that restates the name rather than defining it. It names a verb and resource but "info" is a vague catch-all that fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like get_source_monitor_position, which at least specifies the aspect being retrieved. The "Premiere Pro expanded operation" prefix is generic boilerplate adding no functional meaning.

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 provides zero guidance on when to call this tool versus the many related source-monitor siblings (open_in_source, play_source_monitor, get_source_monitor_position, set_source_in_out). No conditions, exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection cues are given anywhere, leaving the agent to guess which of the closely related tools is appropriate.

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