has_proxy

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

No annotations exist, and the description fails to state the behavior beyond the name: it does not say whether this is a read-only check, what input context it uses (e.g., selected clip/project item), what it returns, or whether it has side effects.

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 definition is very short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence adds no information beyond the tool name.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves critical context unspecified: the agent cannot tell what object is being inspected, what selection state is required, or what the result means. This is inadequate for 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 defined parameters and the schema already captures that, so the baseline of 4 applies. However, the schema's additionalProperties: true leaves the possibility of extra fields unexplained.

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 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: has proxy' restates the tool name without adding a subject or scope. It conveys only that the operation concerns proxy status, not what entity is being checked or what 'has proxy' returns.

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 call this tool rather than related operations such as detach_proxy, set_offline, or get_footage_interpretation. No context or exclusions are provided.

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