resolve_get_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns a JSON object with specific fields and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get', but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or side effects, nor does it mention any error conditions or connection requirements. It adds the return field list, which is useful, but it does not fully disclose behavioral traits.

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 two sentences long, with the core purpose front-loaded ('Get current DaVinci Resolve status') followed by a concise list of return fields. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is highly efficient and easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, a clear read-only status getter). The description explains the return fields, and an output schema exists (though not shown) to provide structured detail. It does not mention error handling or connection prerequisites, but for a status query these are minor. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly in most contexts.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none, and it appropriately focuses on the return value instead.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current DaVinci Resolve status', and specifies the included elements (version, project, timeline, page). It is unambiguous about its purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool resolve_get_current_page, which is a more specific status getter, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 versus alternatives like resolve_get_current_page or resolve_get_playhead. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent would have no explicit basis to choose this over its siblings beyond the general purpose.

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