get_status

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

With no annotations at all, the description still carries the key behavior: this is a connectivity probe that also returns version, project and sequence. Since no output schema exists, disclosing the three return fields is real added value. It doesn't say what happens when Premiere is not connected (error vs. null), which is the main remaining gap.

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, front-loaded with what it returns followed by the ordering instruction. Nothing redundant and nothing padded.

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 zero-param probe with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent needs: what it returns and that it should run first. Failure semantics would be a bonus, not a requirement at this complexity.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and empty by construction.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and enumerates the concrete payload: app version, active project, active sequence. That distinguishes it from get_project_info and get_active_sequence, which each return a subset, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Call this first' gives an explicit ordering directive that most descriptions lack, telling the agent to establish connectivity before anything else. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use, but the sequencing rule is clear.

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