get_project_scratch_disks

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., paths), whether it requires an open project, or any side effects. The name implies a read-only operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that.

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 appropriately short, but the 'Premiere Pro expanded operation:' prefix is unnecessary boilerplate that adds no information. The core content is just the tool name, making it concise but not informative beyond the name itself.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also gives no context about the project state or how the returned scratch disk information is structured. The tool is simple, but the description fails to provide essential context for an agent to know what to expect.

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, and the schema covers them vacuously. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.

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 gets project scratch disks, distinguishing it from the sibling 'set_project_scratch_disk' via the get/set contrast and plural 'disks'. However, it essentially restates the tool name with the boilerplate prefix 'Premiere Pro expanded operation:', adding minimal explanatory value.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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