get_used_media_report

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, read-only behavior, output format, or failure modes. It discloses none of these, offering only a generic 'expanded operation' label and a restatement of the name.

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 short, but the only substantive clause is a restatement of the tool name. The 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' prefix is filler rather than useful context, so the single sentence does not earn its place as documentation.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral detail, the agent cannot predict what the report contains, whether it applies to the active sequence or project, or whether calling it has side effects. This is insufficient even for a simple getter.

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 and an effectively empty input schema, so there is no parameter semantics to document. This is the baseline case where the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 is nearly a verbatim restatement of the tool name ('get used media report') and adds only the generic prefix 'Premiere Pro expanded operation.' It does not explain what the report contains, how it is scoped, or how it differs from related tools like get_unused_media.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to call this tool instead of get_unused_media, get_duplicate_media, get_offline_media, or other media-related tools. There are no prerequisites, context conditions, or exclusions.

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