Read Sequence Captions

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

The description adds a crucial behavioral caveat beyond the annotations: it never treats an empty result as proof that the sequence has no captions, because most CEP builds expose caption creation but not caption reads. This explains potential false negatives and platform-specific behavior, which annotations like readOnlyHint and idempotentHint do not convey.

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 filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the important caveat about empty results follows immediately. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 tool with one optional parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral nuance and purpose. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing; the output schema presumably handles return-value details.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter, documenting that sequence_id is a sequence ID or name and defaults to the active sequence. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies: the schema carries the load and the description does not need to repeat it.

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: it diagnoses whether the active Premiere scripting host can enumerate caption tracks. It goes beyond the title by clarifying that the tool is a capability diagnostic rather than a simple read operation. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_caption_track even without naming 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 purpose implies that this tool should be used when you need to determine whether caption enumeration is supported, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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