Get Caption Style Guidance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Read-only guidance; NEVER modifies caption tracks,' which reinforces the non-destructive behavior and clarifies the tool's scope. It doesn't contradict 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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose (returns presets with recommendations), then immediately provides workflow routing. Every 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?

The tool is simple (1 optional param, no required params) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the workflow context (build_caption_artifact → create_caption_track → manual styling) and the read-only nature. Minor gap: it doesn't describe what the output schema contains, but the output schema itself covers that.

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% and the single parameter 'preset' is fully documented with an enum and description. The description lists the preset names, which matches the schema enum, but doesn't add much beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 returns caption style presets with specific names (clean, bold_pop, karaoke, podcast, lecture) and includes font, position, and styling recommendations plus Premiere UI steps. It distinguishes itself from build_caption_artifact and create_caption_track by explicitly naming them as alternatives.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (for style guidance) and when not to (for SRT/VTT timing, use build_caption_artifact; for importing, use create_caption_track). It also states that styles are applied manually in Premiere's UI, providing clear workflow context.

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