read_sequence_captions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so exceptionally. It discloses the tool's real behavior—always returning trackCount:0 and captions:[]—warns that this does not mean the sequence lacks captions, and explains the captionReadSupported:false signal. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context an agent needs.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: expected output, the API limitation, the practical empty result, the meaning of the support flag, and the correct alternative. The IMPORTANT marker effectively draws attention to the caveat without padding.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: expected return fields, the always-empty behavior, the support signal, the false-negative trap, and the recommended fallback. Nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema already documents the single optional sequenceId with 100% coverage, including that it defaults to the active sequence. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but none is necessary given the complete schema coverage.

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 verb and resource (read caption tracks) and states the intended return shape, but the opening claim is immediately qualified by the caveat that Premiere Pro exposes no caption-read API. This makes the tool's real function ambiguous: it is effectively a support check rather than a caption reader, though the description is explicit about that.

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 tells the agent when not to rely on this tool and what to use instead: 'To read cue text/timing, parse the source .srt file directly instead.' It also explains how to interpret a 0 result. However, it does not explicitly state the positive condition for when this tool should be called, such as 'use this only to verify caption-read support.'

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