get_project_scratch_disks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only labels this as an 'expanded operation' but does not explain what that entails. There is no mention of whether the operation is read-only, requires an open project, returns a list, or has side effects. The agent is left blind to crucial behavioral traits.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It uses vague language ('expanded operation') that adds no value and does not front-load useful information. Every word should earn its place, but 'expanded operation' is filler. A clear, detailed single sentence would be better; this lacks 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?

Given the tool's apparent role in getting scratch disk configuration from a Premiere Pro project, and given that the schema provides no meaningful structure (propertyNames with additionalProperties allows arbitrary keys), the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain what is returned, the format, or how it relates to other scratch disk operations. There is no functional guidance for the agent beyond the name itself.

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, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though propertyNames with additionalProperties: {} allows arbitrary properties, but no specific parameters). Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to provide parameter details. The baseline for 0 params is 4, which is reasonable here because the tool's interface is trivially simple.

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 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: get project scratch disks.' provides a vague purpose. It names the tool and mentions 'expanded operation' without specifying what the tool retrieves or returns. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like set_project_scratch_disk or get_project_info. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name with minimal added value.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred. It does not indicate that it pairs with set_project_scratch_disk or differentiate from other getters. The tool name alone suggests retrieval, but no usage guidance is offered.

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