get_effect_properties

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, how it handles missing effect properties, or any side effects. The vague claim of being an 'expanded operation' is unsubstantiated and offers no actional transparency.

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?

Although the description is short, its brevity is not a positive because it adds no value beyond the tool name. The sentence is a tautology wrapped in 'Premiere Pro expanded operation'. It is under-specified, not concise in a meaningful way.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and meaningful parameter definitions, the tool needs a thorough description to be usable. One vague sentence is wholly insufficient for an agent to select, invoke, and interpret the results of this tool. The description is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 schema has zero explicit parameters but allows arbitrary additional properties, which is unusual. The description does not clarify what properties are expected (e.g., effect name, clip path, time) or how the tool identifies the target effect. Even with zero formal params, the agent needs guidance on how to specify the operation context, which is entirely absent.

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: get effect properties' essentially restates the tool name without adding a clear verb or resource. It does not explain what the tool does with effect properties (e.g., retrieves values, lists available properties, etc.) nor how it relates to siblings like list_clip_effects or get_value_at_time. The phrase 'expanded operation' is vague and provides no functional clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_effect_property or list_clip_effects. The description does not specify a context, prerequisites, or typical workflow. It fails to distinguish the intended use case, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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