get_capabilities

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. It explicitly states that the connection check is 'read-only' and that no Premiere request is made when checkConnection is false. This gives the agent confidence about side effects, though it does not elaborate on the cost or format of the full capability report.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope, while the second efficiently explains the conditional parameter behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema, the description provides a useful list of report contents and the optional connection check behavior. It could specify more about return format or what 'supported versus experimental' means, but it gives enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result in most cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents checkConnection. The description adds value by clarifying that the check is read-only, 'live', and that skipping it avoids any Premiere request, which is semantic information beyond the schema's type and description.

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 'Reports' and identifies a clear resource: the local MCP runtime, bridge status, catalog sizes, and integration surfaces. This precisely defines the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like verify_premiere_connection, which focuses solely on connectivity.

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 clearly explains when to use the checkConnection parameter and its default behavior, giving the agent actionable guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the conditional instruction 'otherwise no Premiere request is made' establishes appropriate usage context.

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