get_stabilizer_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses a critical behavioral nuance: `solved: false` means the clip is not actually stabilised regardless of settings, and that scripted changes don't trigger re-analysis. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, how to interpret a key field, and an actionable warning. Perfectly front-loaded with the purpose, no filler.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the most important field (`solved`) and the re-analysis caveat, making the tool's output understandable. For a simple no-param getter, this is complete and sufficient for an agent to use it and interpret results.

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 baseline is 4. There are no parameters to explain, and the description doesn't need to add any.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource ('Warp Stabilizer state') and scope ('every clip that has it'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_stabilizer_mode, which modifies state, and get_clip, which retrieves clip metadata.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Always check this after changing stabiliser settings' and explains the reason ('scripted changes do not trigger re-analysis'). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to apply correctly.

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