get_advanced_feature_support

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

The description confirms read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior (consistent with annotations) and adds specifics about the types of information reported (public-API support, prerequisites, entitlements, boundaries). No contradictions with 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys essential information without wasted words.

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 tool has no output schema, but the description does not disclose the return format or structure. An agent needs to know whether the report returns a boolean, a list, or a complex object. This omission reduces completeness.

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% with descriptive parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 reports 'public-API support, prerequisites, entitlements, and user-assisted boundaries' for specific features (Premiere collaboration and AI). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_av_feature_support and inspect_sequence_av_settings.

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 implies the tool is used to check support for collaboration and AI features, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_av_feature_support). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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