resolve_capabilities

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

The description discloses what the tool reports (tier, version, ffmpeg, dependencies) and implies read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructive or idempotent nature, though 'reports' suggests it. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and is mostly transparent.

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 effectively convey purpose and usage guidelines. The first sentence lists items; the second provides cross-tool guidance. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured, but efficient and front-loaded.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and provides important context about tier behavior and dry_run defaults. It is complete for the tool's simplicity and the agent's decision-making needs.

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 and the input schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to add meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 the tool reports the active tier (live vs interchange), DaVinci Resolve version, ffmpeg availability, and dependency status. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools which perform specific actions like editing, rendering, or analyzing media.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call FIRST', providing strong priority guidance. It also explains when to use the tool based on tier (live vs interchange) and describes the dry_run behavior for mutating tools, which helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool before others.

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