get_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the specific items reported, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as response format, side effects, or performance considerations. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 sentence that immediately states the action ('Report') and enumerates the specific capabilities. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no extraneous words. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and the annotations fully cover safety, the description effectively communicates what the tool does by naming the four reported items. For a simple read-only query, this is complete and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's behavior for an AI agent.

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 the schema coverage is 100% by default. Per the guidelines, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. No value is lost.

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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and names four distinct capabilities (Windows/macOS support, Premiere Pro backend coverage, enabled authority, live host verification). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_sequence_count or get_clip_properties, which focus on different domains.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. It simply states what it reports, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate. No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information is given.

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