Premiere capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description's use of 'Report' is consistent with a read-only operation. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that—no mention of performance, side effects, what happens on missing permissions, or interpretation of the reported boundaries. With limited annotation coverage, the description carries little extra load and fails to illuminate behavior.

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 a single sentence, which is concise in length, but it is a dense list of undefined terms with no structure or front-loading of the most salient information. It reads like a fragment, not a clear explanation, and could be improved by defining terms and stating how the optional parameter modifies the output.

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 that reports a complex set of capabilities, the description is entirely inadequate. It fails to explain the meaning of each reported element, how the 'domain' parameter influences results, or how this relates to the domain-specific sibling tools. An agent has insufficient information to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect.

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 schema defines a single optional 'domain' parameter with an enum list, but the description makes no mention of it or how it affects the report. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is solely responsible for explaining the parameter; it does not. An agent has no basis to decide which domain value to pass or what the parameter controls.

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 ('Report') and lists several report categories, but the categories themselves are undefined jargon ('enabled authorities', 'action risk', 'live-host verification boundaries') that an agent cannot interpret without additional context. It is not a tautology, but it fails to clearly convey what the tool actually provides, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools that may also report domain-specific state.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., premiere_api, premiere_timeline). It does not state prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions under which this capability report is needed. An agent would have to guess whether to call this before other tools or after.

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