resolve_get_product

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Return'. It adds behavioral context by explaining the expected output values (DaVinci Resolve vs DaVinci Resolve Studio), which is useful beyond the annotation. No contradiction.

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?

Two brief sentences, with the core action in the first. No filler or redundant details. Every word adds 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient clarity about the return value. It includes typical values, which helps set expectations. It could add error conditions, but the simplicity makes this complete enough.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description's job is not to explain inputs. It instead clarifies the output semantics, which is the next best thing. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and specifies the resource 'Resolve product name'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like resolve_get_version by clarifying that it returns the edition (free vs Studio), not the version.

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 when to use the tool: when you need the product name/edition. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but brother tools like resolve_get_version make the differentiation clear. The stated typical values (free vs paid) provide practical context.

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