premiere_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully scopes what is inspected (six distinct components) and implies a non-destructive read, but says nothing about latency or blocking behaviour, whether the live ping causes side effects in Premiere, or what a failure response looks like.

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 or repetition; the component list is informative rather than padding. It could be marginally tightened, but every clause contributes scope information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally say what the check returns (per-component pass/fail status? a single boolean?) and how to act on failures. It also omits any routing relative to premiere_ping. For a diagnostic tool that is otherwise self-explanatory, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents verify_live_ping fully, including its default. The description's mention of 'live ExtendScript connectivity' loosely echoes the parameter but adds no new syntax or conditional detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Run a comprehensive health check') and then enumerates exactly what is inspected: MCP server, HTTP bridge, Premiere installation, CEP extension, process status, and ExtendScript connectivity. That is far more precise than a generic 'check health'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling premiere_ping, which an agent will also see in the tool list.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus premiere_ping, which is the obvious alternative for a liveness check. No preconditions, no 'use this before attempting other operations' framing, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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