get_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it states the tool is read-only, that checkConnection is optional and defaults to false, and that no Premiere request is made otherwise. It doesn't mention error handling or exact return shape, but for a capability report this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the parameter behavior. No filler words, each sentence earns its place.

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 the simplicity of the tool and the well-documented schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool reports and the optional flag behavior. A minor gap is not describing the output format, but with no output schema and the nature of capability reporting, this is acceptable.

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 single parameter checkConnection is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with clear semantics and default. The description adds only a small note about being read-only and the default behavior, which is already implicit in the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Reports') and enumerates the exact resources it covers (runtime, bridge status, catalog sizes, integration surfaces). This distinguishes it from siblings like verify_premiere_connection and get_version_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?

Provides explicit context on when to set checkConnection and explains the default behavior (non-invasive capability discovery). It references verify_premiere_connection as the underlying check, giving a hint of alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly say 'use verify_premiere_connection instead.'

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