get_project_scratch_disks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get project scratch disks' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state what gets returned, whether the result is a list of paths or structured objects, or whether it can fail. This is a minimal, name-repeating description.

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 essentially restates the tool's domain rather than adding value. The useful content is only 'get project scratch disks,' which repeats the tool name. It is concise but not optimally structured because it spends words on a generic prefix.

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?

This is a simple getter with no parameters and no annotations, but there is also no output schema or behavioral description. The agent cannot determine what the operation returns or how to interpret the result. Given the absence of structured context, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers the parameter space. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter meaning the description needs to add.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'get project scratch disks.' This directly distinguishes it from siblings like 'set_project_scratch_disk' and 'set_scratch_disk_path' through the get/set contrast. The 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' prefix is boilerplate, but the core clause is unambiguous.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to call this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context such as needing an open project. The agent is left to infer from the tool name alone.

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