get_capabilities

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses that the operation is read-only and only makes a Premiere request when checkConnection is true, making side effects transparent. No contradiction with any annotations.

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 concise sentences, no redundant information, and the structure is logical: first states the general capability, then clarifies the optional parameter's effect. Every word adds value.

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 description is complete for its purpose: it covers the tool's main outputs and the condition for executing a live check. Since there is no output schema, no additional return information is required.

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 well described in the schema, but the description adds meaning by explaining its effect (runs a live check) and default behavior (fast, non-invasive). This goes beyond the basic boolean type.

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?

Clearly states it reports runtime, bridge status, catalog sizes, and integration surfaces, using the verb 'reports' which specifies the action and the resources. Distinct from sibling tools that operate on project items, sequences, etc.

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?

Explicitly explains when to set checkConnection to true for a live connection check and that otherwise no Premiere request is made, providing clear usage context. Differentiates from other tools that perform direct edits or queries.

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