describe

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It implies a read-only observational tool but never says so explicitly, and gives no information about output size limits on large projects, permissions, or whether 'latest issues' is a cached or live computation. The return-content inventory is helpful but behavioral traits beyond content are largely absent.

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?

Two tight sentences with the returned content front-loaded ahead of the `at` modifier. It is dense but not padded; the only cost is some compressed jargon ("Time", "issues") that reads as terse rather than wasteful.

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 does cover what the response contains, which is the key gap it had to fill. It still leaves the required `project` parameter undefined and says nothing about read-only status or output volume for large projects, so an agent could call it correctly but not confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does this well for `at`, giving accepted forms (seconds, Time like "line:4", "clip:c2.end" meaning c2's last frame) and the effect of supplying it, but `project` — the one required parameter — is never explained at all.

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 the specific resource concretely — the editor window rendered as text, enumerating canvas, safe area, duration, voice lines, tracks with clips, assets and issues — which is far more informative than the bare name 'describe'. It does not differentiate from siblings such as preview, check, assets or review, which plausibly overlap with the 'assets' and 'latest issues' content it returns.

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 through the `at` conditional: omitting `at` gives the whole window, supplying it narrows to a moment. There is no statement of when to prefer this over preview, check or review, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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