read_sequence_captions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses the unexpected behavior (always returns empty results due to API limitations), explains the response fields (captionReadSupported:false) that signal this limitation, and clarifies that a zero result does not mean the sequence lacks captions. This is exemplary 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?

The description is concise and well-structured, with the core purpose stated first followed by the critical warning. Each sentence provides necessary context, and the imperative alternative is clearly separated. No words are wasted.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the exact return shape (each caption clip as { start, end, text } in seconds), the response fields for the unsupported case, and the operational context (Premiere Pro scripting DOM limitation). This makes the tool's behavior fully predictable and complete for the user.

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 already provides full coverage for the sole parameter sequenceId with the description 'Optional sequence ID. Defaults to the active sequence.' The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantic information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 reads caption tracks of a sequence and specifies the return format as { start, end, text } in seconds. It starts with a specific verb and resource, and the unique caveat about Premiere Pro's API limitations distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_caption_track or list_sequence_tracks.

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 explicitly states when not to rely on this tool ('returns trackCount:0 / captions:[] even when the sequence HAS a working caption track') and provides a direct alternative ('parse the source .srt file directly instead'). This gives clear guidance on when to use or avoid the tool relative to alternatives.

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