verify_premiere_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does well: it reveals that the tool may launch Premiere as a side effect, waits for the CEP panel, auto-starts the bridge, and exposes nextStep on failure. It does not describe the exact return shape or success/failure indicators, which would make it fully transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavior/wait semantics, and failure handling. The most important instruction ('call before any editing tool') is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: what it does, when to call it, what side effects it may trigger, and how to handle failure. The 'nextStep' reference even hints at the failure return shape. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%; the schema already fully documents launchIfNeeded including its default behavior and false-case meaning. The description refers to launching behavior but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. 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: a 'readiness check' for Premiere Pro and the MCP Bridge. It also frames itself as a prerequisite ('Call this before any editing tool'), which distinguishes it from the editing tools it precedes. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this before any editing tool') and when-not-to-continue guidance ('If it fails... do not retry other tools'). It names the class of alternatives (editing tools) and instructs the agent to surface nextStep to the user instead. This is unusually actionable usage guidance.

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