Check Caption Safe Zone

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is local-only, operates on caller-supplied normalized rects, never reads or changes Premiere, and uses approximate overlay zones. This fully discloses side effects and the level of precision.

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 tight sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second states constraints and non-interaction with Premiere. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no filler.

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?

For a read-only analysis tool with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description covers what matters: platforms, element kinds, normalized coordinates, local-only behavior, and non-invasiveness. The output schema handles return-value details, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds useful semantic context by tying 'elements' to caption/title/logo/graphic rectangles, emphasizing normalized caller-supplied rects, and linking platform to UI overlay zones, which enriches the schema without redundancy.

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 states a specific verb ('check'), a clear resource ('caption, title, logo, and graphic rectangles'), and a concrete result ('suggest the nearest clear position'). It also names the target platforms and distinguishes the tool from Premiere-bound siblings by noting it never reads or changes Premiere.

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 provides clear context: this is a local-only geometry check for platform UI safe zones, independent of Premiere. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope and constraints are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the large sibling set.

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