get_xmp_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool gets XMP metadata. It does not disclose return format, side effects, operating scope, failure modes, or whether any Premiere Pro state is required.

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 short, but brevity here is actually under-specification rather than conciseness. The phrase "Premiere Pro expanded operation" is filler and does not earn its place, while the substantive content merely repeats the tool name.

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?

For a Premiere Pro metadata tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It fails to indicate what object or selection the XMP metadata applies to, what the output looks like, and how it differs from get_metadata or set_xmp_metadata.

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 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed because there are no parameters to explain.

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 essentially restates the tool name: "get xmp metadata" adds no new scope or target information beyond the name itself. "Premiere Pro expanded operation" is boilerplate and does not clarify whether this reads XMP from clips, project items, sequences, or something else, nor does it distinguish the tool from siblings like get_metadata or set_xmp_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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_metadata or the many other inspection tools. No prerequisites, selection requirements, or context are provided.

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