Get Caption Style Guidance

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description reinforces the safety profile with 'Read-only guidance; NEVER modifies caption tracks' and adds genuinely useful behavioral context: styles must be applied manually in Premiere's UI rather than by this tool. It does not contradict annotations, though it repeats some of their safety signal rather than adding entirely new behavioral detail.

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 three tight sentences: output scope, safety/workflow constraint, and alternative-tool routing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, and each sentence provides actionable information.

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 is simple, has full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It nonetheless provides the workflow context an agent needs: what it returns, that it is non-destructive, and how it relates to adjacent caption tools. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single optional enum parameter is already fully described in the schema with its default. The description names the same preset values but adds no syntax, format, or selection nuance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: returns caption style presets with font, position, styling recommendations, and Premiere UI steps. It lists the exact preset set and explicitly distinguishes the tool from build_caption_artifact and create_caption_track, so an agent can identify its unique role immediately.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance by naming the alternative build_caption_artifact for SRT/VTT timing and create_caption_track for import, then clarifies that style application is manual in Premiere's UI. The workflow sequence is explicit enough that an agent knows this tool is for guidance, not for caption artifact generation or track creation.

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