get_value_at_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it discloses almost nothing. The phrase 'expanded operation' faintly implies low-level/advanced access, and 'get' implies a read, but there is no information about side effects, failure modes, required state, or return behavior. This is far below what an unannotated tool needs.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise: the generic 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' prefix and the restatement of the tool name barely earn their place, and the description fails to use its brevity to add substance.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, an effectively empty input schema, and a near-tautological description. An agent cannot determine what 'value' refers to, what time format is expected (seconds, frames, timecode), which sequence or property scope applies, or what the return shape is. This is completely inadequate for correct invocation.

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?

With zero documented parameters, the baseline is 4. The schema is an empty open object that provides no semantics at all, and the description's 'at time' is the only hint that the tool operates on a time input. This adds a small amount of meaning beyond the schema, though an agent still cannot learn the expected parameter names from either source.

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 essentially the tool name restated with a generic 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' prefix. It names a verb ('get') and a vague resource ('value at time'), but never defines what kind of value (property, keyframe, effect parameter) is being retrieved or in what scope. With 158 siblings including get_keyframes, get_playhead_position, and get_effect_properties, an agent cannot tell what this tool uniquely does.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus its many getter siblings, no mention of prerequisites such as an active sequence or playhead position, and no exclusions. The description neither misleads nor helps; it simply provides no usage context at all.

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