get_all_project_paths

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 only restates the operation name without adding context about return format, side effects, performance, or error behavior. The term 'expanded operation' is uninformative. It does not describe what 'all project paths' means or whether it is a deep recursive listing.

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 very short and the core information is front-loaded in the second half. However, the 'Premiere Pro expanded operation:' prefix is filler and could be omitted. It is concise but could be cleaner without the boilerplate.

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 params, no output schema), but the description still leaves key context missing. It does not clarify what 'project paths' refers to, what the return value looks like, or how it relates to other project inspection tools. Given the ambiguity and lack of output schema, a more descriptive sentence would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 4. The schema is empty and the description appropriately adds no parameter details since none exist. No further parameter explanation is needed.

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 action ('get all project paths') with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_project_info and list_project_items. However, the phrase 'expanded operation' is vague and adds no meaningful scope, and 'project paths' could be interpreted ambiguously (e.g., media paths vs. bin hierarchy).

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_info, list_project_items, or get_full_project_overview. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations.

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