get_effect_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only implies a read operation via the word 'get' but does not state what information is returned, whether any selection is required, whether it reads from the currently selected clip or an effect object, or any potential side effects. No behavioral traits beyond the tool's name are disclosed.

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 a single sentence with no structural waste, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' adds no value and obscures the actual purpose. The description is too terse to be useful, similar to the 'Process' example.

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?

Given no output schema, no parameter documentation, and a rich set of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'effect properties' means, how the effect is identified, what the response looks like, or any context about the current selection. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the description is not expected to explain parameters. However, the schema itself is oddly permissive (additionalProperties allowed), and the description does not clarify that no arguments are required, leaving slight ambiguity. The baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 effect properties.' It identifies the action (get) and resource (effect properties) but adds no scope, such as which clip or sequence's properties, how to identify the effect, or what properties are included. 'Expanded operation' is unexplained filler and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like list_clip_effects or get_value_at_time.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a selected clip, an effect instance), no indication of which sibling tools to prefer, and no context about how this fits into a workflow.

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