filmora_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully enumerates the data categories returned (executables, windows, pause state, version), which is real added value given no output schema, but says nothing about error behavior or environment prerequisites.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; every listed item is distinct information. Nothing could be trimmed without losing coverage.

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 parameters, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it does enumerate the returned categories. The remaining gap is scope relative to sibling status/window tools, which it never addresses.

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, so the schema requires no compensation and the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose semantics could be misread.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates exactly what is read: installed executables, running Filmora windows, pause state, and server version. That is concrete and useful, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like filmora_windows or filmora_state, which sound like they may overlap.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether Filmora must be launched), and no alternatives named despite numerous overlapping siblings (filmora_state, filmora_windows, filmora_inspect, filmora_capabilities). The agent must guess at the boundary itself.

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