get_duplicate_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, if any permissions are required, or what the return format is. The description provides no behavioral information beyond the bare action verb.

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?

While the description is extremely short (one sentence), it is under-specified rather than concisely effective. It omits essential information about the tool's purpose and behavior, so it does not earn credit for conciseness—it is merely sparse.

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 tool that presumably returns duplicate media, the description is completely inadequate. With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what qualifies as duplicate, how duplicates are detected, and what the result looks like. It does none of this, making it minimally viable at best.

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 contains no properties. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add any parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to explain and no ambiguity introduced.

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 duplicate media' essentially restates the tool name with a prefix. It identifies the action (get) and resource (duplicate media) but adds no detail about what constitutes duplicates or how results are presented, and it fails to distinguish itself from related tools like consolidate_duplicates or check_offline_media.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as consolidate_duplicates or check_offline_media. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without any decision support.

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