get_effect_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is read-only, what output it returns, whether it requires a selected clip or effect, or what 'expanded operation' means. The phrase is opaque and fails to inform the agent about side effects, return format, or operational context.

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 short, but 'Premiere Pro expanded operation:' is filler that repeats the tool's Premiere Pro context without adding information. The remaining phrase restates the tool name. There is no front-loaded useful content, so this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 that the tool operates on effects in Premiere Pro, has no defined parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line tautological description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine how to invoke the tool, what to pass, what it returns, or what 'effect properties' means in this context.

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 zero parameters and has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. However, the schema also has additionalProperties:true, which leaves the actual input contract open and unexplained. The description does not compensate by describing what inputs are expected (e.g., effect name, clip reference), so it does not fully justify the baseline.

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 names a specific operation ('get effect properties'), so an agent can tell this is a getter. However, it does not identify what effect or clip the properties belong to, and 'expanded operation' adds no real meaning. It remains indistinguishable from related siblings like list_clip_effects or get_clip_properties.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_clip_effects, get_keyframes, or get_clip_properties. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, so an agent has no basis for selecting this tool over its many siblings.

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