studio_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a passive, read-only disclosure by listing only information it reports and taking no parameters, but it never explicitly confirms the tool is read-only, side-effect free, or cheap to call, and says nothing about return shape.

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 short, dense sentences with no filler; the report contents come first and the call-ordering directive closes it. The noun-list phrasing reads as a keyword dump rather than prose, but nothing is wasted.

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, the description is the only signal about what comes back, and it names the categories of information without any field names or structure. For an info tool an agent must parse programmatically, that leaves a real gap, though the category list is better than nothing.

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 schema declares zero parameters at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level content is missing.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool reports: asset storage location, watched downloads folder, ffmpeg availability, and the project list. That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like project_get or ingest, though it never states a verb (e.g. 'returns') or names itself as the studio configuration query.

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?

'Call first.' is an explicit, actionable sequencing directive that tells the agent when to reach for this tool relative to the other eleven siblings. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to call it, but the ordering rule is the key guidance for a 0-param info tool.

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