get_source_monitor_position

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. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format is (e.g., timecode, frames), or any side effects. It adds no information beyond the tool's name, leaving the agent without expectations for output or state changes.

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 description is extremely brief and front-loaded, but it is poorly structured – the phrase 'expanded operation' is vague and adds nothing. It essentially restates the tool name with a redundant prefix, making it more of a label than an informative description.

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 getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description should still clarify what 'position' means and in what units it is returned. It lacks any detail about the returned value, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly interpret the result or handle potential errors.

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 zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain any. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. No parameter-related information is missing, and the trivial schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a clear action ('get') and a resource ('source monitor position'), but the prefix 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' adds no semantic value and the phrasing closely mirrors the tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_playhead_position or play_source_monitor, though the 'source monitor' qualifier hints at scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_playhead_position for the timeline or get_source_monitor_info for broader source monitor state. The description implies a source-monitor context but offers no exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess.

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