get_graphics_white_luminance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only repeats the operation name and gives no information about return values, side effects, performance characteristics, or what 'white luminance' represents in Premiere Pro.

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?

While the text is short, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence adds no informational value beyond the tool name, so it does not 'earn its place' as a meaningful description.

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 and no annotations, the description needed to explain what value is returned and in what form. It does neither. Even for a simple getter, the description is incomplete because the semantics of 'graphics white luminance' and the expected result are not clarified.

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, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description to carry. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not mislead about inputs.

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 is essentially the tool name restated with a generic 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' prefix. It identifies the resource ('graphics white luminance') and a getter action, but provides no actual functional specificity or distinction from the paired set_graphics_white_luminance sibling beyond the verb in the name.

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 about when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to set_graphics_white_luminance and other graphics-related operations. The description gives no context for selecting it over alternatives.

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