get_export_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey that this is a non-mutating inspection ('Inspect... and list') and scopes the result to 'verified system' presets, but it omits return shape, whether the host app must be running, and any failure/version caveats beyond the '2019' qualifier.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the parenthetical enumeration is tightly scoped to defining what 'export methods' means.

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 parameterless, annotation-free discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys both what is inspected and the categories returned. It stops short of describing the response structure, which an agent may need in order to consume the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to disambiguate inputs, and it correctly frames the call as argument-free.

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?

Names a specific verb (Inspect) and resource (export capabilities), then enumerates the exact surfaces covered: exportAsMediaDirect, app.encoder queue, FCP XML, project export, plus verified .epr presets. This distinguishes it cleanly from validate_export_settings and export_active_sequence, which act on a configured export rather than discovering what is possible.

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 phrasing implies a discovery step that precedes export/validation, and the sibling set suggests validate_export_settings and export_active_sequence are the downstream tools. However, it never explicitly states when to call this versus those, nor any prerequisites such as Premiere being connected.

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