cascadeur_capabilities

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful caveat beyond those annotations: 'Presence is not proof of execution' warns that listed capabilities may not be invocable or succeed. It also signals that it reports actual editor methods rather than assumed ones.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and ending with an important caveat. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of the tool name or schema fields.

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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool, the description is complete: it states what will be discovered, including limitations, and warns about over-trusting presence. Annotations cover the safety profile, so no critical guidance is missing.

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, so the 100% schema coverage leaves nothing undocumented. The description appropriately focuses on what information the call returns rather than parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Discover' and names concrete resources: installed app tools, actual editor methods, license flags and limitations. This clearly positions it as the general capability-introspection tool alongside siblings that operate on scenes, objects, or specific actions.

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?

It clearly implies use before working with other tools, to learn what is installed and allowed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the zero-parameter discovery purpose makes the context clear.

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