get_export_file_extension

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state what the tool returns (e.g., the extension string), whether it requires an active export or a selected item, or any side effects. It merely says 'expanded operation,' which is uninformative.

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 very short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It uses the word 'expanded' which adds no value and might confuse. It is a single sentence but lacks necessary information, so it cannot receive full credit for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool is part of a large set of Premiere Pro operations, and it lacks annotations, output schema, and parameter details, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'get export file extension' is used for, what it returns, or how it fits with export-related tools like export_sequence or export_as_fcp_xml. The description does not enable an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 takes zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuous). Since no parameters exist, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It gets a high score because there is nothing to clarify.

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 says 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: get export file extension' but the description adds the word 'expanded' which is vague. It does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves the file extension for an export operation) or what resource it acts upon. It is almost a restatement of the name without providing concrete functionality.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites (e.g., an active export setting), or when not to use it (e.g., for extension of other file types). The description is too sparse to infer context.

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