has_proxy

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

No annotations are provided for this toolaineer's write/read/destructive hints, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description fails to state what the tool returns, whether it requires an active project, whether it's a fast/cheap check, or what side effects might occur. It adds no behavioral context whatsoever beyond the name.

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 extremely brief ('Premiere Pro expanded operation: has proxy.'), which is concise but under-specified. This is not a case of efficient writing; it's a case of insufficient content. The word 'expanded operation' is vague filler that adds no 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?

Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the description omits critical details: what it checks, what the return value means, whether it requires an active project, and how it relates to proxy workflows in Premiere Pro. With no annotations and no schema description beyond an open-ended propertyNames object, this is severely incomplete even for a simple predicate-style 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?

The tool has 0 parametersais the schema allows arbitrary properties, the description doesn't need to explain parameters. With an open-ended schema (any string keys allowed), some guidance on expected property names would be helpful, but the zero-parameter actual usage keeps this acceptable.

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: has proxy' is nearly a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify what action is performed, what resource is checked, or what 'has proxy' means in context (e.g., whether it checks if the current project has proxy media enabled). It fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'check_offline_media' or 'get_project_info'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requires an open project), typical scenarios, or exclusions. The agent gets no help choosing between this and the many other inspection tools in the sibling list.

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