Get Export File Extension

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing a non-obvious fallback: inference occurs only for an existing .epr in a recognized Adobe Media Encoder format folder, and the inferred result is flagged unconfirmed and must be verified before delivery. That uncertainty flagging is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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 sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the conditional fallback caveat follows, so the agent reads the main behavior first and the edge case second.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be described, and the annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. The description supplies the one piece not encoded in structured fields — the conditional inference and its unconfirmed status. Only the 'recognized Adobe Media Encoder format folder' set is left undefined, which is a minor gap for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and preset_path is documented as 'Full path to the export preset file (.epr)', so the baseline is 3. The description adds a mild qualifier on which paths qualify for the fallback (existing .epr in a recognized AME folder), but it does not specify path syntax, format variants, or error behavior for the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the export file extension from Premiere') with the source system named, so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent tools like validate_export_preset or get_encoder_presets, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the closing 'should be checked before delivery' hints at a delivery-verification workflow, and the fallback branch explains what happens when Premiere returns no extension. There is no explicit when-to-use versus an alternative tool such as validate_export_preset.

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