filmora_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral caveat — that UI probing reflects exposed controls rather than account entitlements — but says nothing about cost, latency, or what happens when the detected version is unsupported.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the primary purpose leads. It is dense to the point of being cryptic ('Resolve commands/features'), but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations about returns, the description should at least hint at what 'resolve' produces — a list of supported commands, a version map, a boolean? That is entirely absent, leaving the agent unable to anticipate the result shape.

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 0% and the sole parameter is an undescribed boolean, so the description carries the burden. It does explain the semantic distinction of probe_ui (it inspects exposed UI controls, not entitlement state), which is real meaning absent from the schema, though it omits any note on the default-false behavior.

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 names a domain (commands/features for Filmora X/10+) but the verb 'resolve' is vague and never says what the tool actually returns. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as filmora_commands and filmora_feature_guide, so an agent cannot confidently pick this one over those.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though filmora_commands and filmora_feature_guide sit in the same sibling set. The one clause present ('probe_ui checks exposed controls, not account entitlements') describes a parameter's scope, not when to select this tool.

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