Ssemble AI Clipping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reveal key behavioral traits: asynchronous processing (immediate request ID, 5-30 min), cost (1 credit), and input sources (YouTube or uploaded file). It does not cover error handling or authentication, but the most critical behaviors are 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by key constraints (instant request ID, processing time, credit cost). Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy.

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 complex tool with 21 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential behavioral info but omits how the source is specified (url vs fileUrl), the full response format, and explicit guidance on combining with sibling tools like get_status. The schema mitigates parameter gaps, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 21 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only high-level context about source types (YouTube/upload) but does not individually explicate parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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's specific action: 'Create AI-generated short-form video clips from a YouTube video or uploaded file.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, get, delete, or check status.

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 implies when to use this tool (to create a short) by mentioning it returns a request ID immediately and processing takes 5-30 minutes, hinting that subsequent status checks are needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like get_status or list_* for complementary operations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It explicitly states the action is permanent, deletes associated videos, and credits are not refunded, which are critical operational consequences.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential warnings. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 single-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and irreversibility. It is contextually complete for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke.

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 schema already covers the parameter fully with description and pattern, so the high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 specifies the verb 'delete', the resource 'short creation request', and the scope 'all generated videos', clearly distinguishing it from sibling create/list/get tools.

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 provides clear context: it's for permanent deletion with irreversible consequences. The warning about non-refundable credits and irreversibility implicitly advises caution, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the request must be completed and that omitting the ID lists recent requests, but it does not mention error handling, empty results, or whether it is read-only. This is adequate but not rich.

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 the primary action, and no wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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 the simple tool (1 optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key usage scenario and both modes of invocation. It could mention return format or error cases, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient.

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 schema already provides a detailed description for requestId (24-char hex from create_short, omit to see recent requests). The description adds the 'completed request' context, which is meaningful extra semantics about when the parameter is valid. This goes beyond the schema's baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('all generated short clips'), and scopes it to 'a completed request'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_status (which retrieves status) and create_short (which creates).

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: to retrieve clips for a completed request, and provides two usage modes (provide a request ID or omit it to browse recent requests). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear and actionable.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Check' and the optional behavior of listing recent requests. It could mention output details but is adequate for a status check.

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, both purposeful: the first states the action, the second gives usage instructions. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and usage adequately, though it doesn't describe the response format. Given the low complexity, this is sufficient.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already fully describes requestId including the pattern and the omit behavior. The description adds minimal new meaning ('pick one') beyond what is already in the 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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource as 'processing status of a short creation request'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_short, delete_request, and get_shorts.

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?

It provides clear context on how to use the tool: provide a request ID or omit it to see recent requests. It implies the workflow but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the action 'List available' indicating a read operation, and adds the layout detail. However, it does not describe response format, pagination behavior, or any other side effects, which is a gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, each earning its place. First sentence states the action and context; second sentence provides actionable direction for downstream usage. No redundant words.

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 simple list tool with two optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the purpose (split-screen overlays), the layout, and the relationship to create_short. The only missing piece is a description of the return fields, but the reference to gameVideoName partially covers that.

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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (page and limit) with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning gameVideoName, which is not an input parameter but an output field referenced for create_short. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'available gameplay videos' and provides context 'for split-screen overlays (content top, game bottom)', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_music or list_meme_hooks. It also clarifies its role in the workflow with 'Use the exact gameVideoName when creating shorts.'

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 implies when to use by linking to create_short ('Use the exact gameVideoName when creating shorts'), providing clear context for acquiring video names. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention cases where another list tool would be preferred, so not a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently implies a read-only operation by saying 'List available', and it explains the nature of the items (clips prepended to shorts). It adds context about the purpose of the output, though it does not detail pagination behavior or response format, which are partially covered by the schema.

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 exactly two sentences in a conventional structure: the first states the purpose and defines the resource, and the second gives actionable usage guidance. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it identifies the resource, explains what a meme hook is, and tells the agent how to use the result (the exact memeHookName when creating shorts). It omits a detailed return structure, but given the schema covers pagination parameters and the tool is straightforward, the description provides sufficient context 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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (page and limit) with defaults and constraints, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds some value by mentioning 'memeHookName' as the key output field to use, but it does not directly provide additional semantics for the input parameters, placing it at the baseline 3.

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 action 'List' and the resource 'available meme hook clips', and adds a defining parenthetical '2-5 second attention grabbers prepended to shorts' that distinguishes meme hooks from other listable resources like game videos or music. This differentiates the tool from sibling tools that also list content.

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 does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but it provides a clear usage context: 'Use the exact memeHookName when creating shorts' implies the tool is intended to be used before create_short to fetch valid hook names. This gives the agent a clear scenario for when to invoke this tool, though it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly disclose safety traits or any other behavioral nuances (e.g., ordering, defaults). It does state what the response includes (names and durations), providing minimal behavioral context.

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 the main purpose, and no wasted words. The usage hint is valuable and concise.

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 simple list tool with two pagination parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, return value (names and durations), and a usage tip. It lacks explicit mention of pagination defaults or ordering, but these are secondary to the tool's function.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters (page and limit), and the description adds no extra meaning about these parameters—it only mentions the output fields. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully specifies the parameters.

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 states 'List available background music tracks with names and durations', which is a specific verb ('List') and resource ('background music tracks'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_game_videos and list_meme_hooks by specifying the resource type.

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 provides usage context by advising 'Use the exact musicName when creating shorts', indicating when this tool's output is relevant. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear given the sibling tools are for different resource types.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose potential side effects, response shapes, or rate limits. The word 'List' implies safety, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond what the name already conveys.

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 a single sentence of 11 words, front-loading the core action ('List all short creation requests') and then listing the optional features. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the response looks like or note limitations, but it does not. It covers the basic functionality and parameters adequately, but an agent may not know the return format or potential edge cases (e.g., empty results). This is a clear gap, making it merely viable.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of all five parameters with clear types, defaults, and descriptions. The description merely summarizes the parameters (status filtering, pagination, sorting) without adding new meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('short creation requests'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_music or list_templates. It also mentions optional status filtering, pagination, and sorting, giving a precise scope of functionality.

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 implies usage: it is the tool for listing short creation requests with optional filters and sorting. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., get_status for a single request status) or provide exclusions, so guidance is only inferred rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of all available templates (implying a read-only operation), includes preview thumbnails, names, and IDs, and indicates 'all available' meaning no filtering. This is useful behavioral context beyond what the verb 'list' alone conveys.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the secondary usage guidance directly following. Every word contributes; no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple: no parameters, no output schema, no annotations. The description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how the result can be used. It is complete for this tool's 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' with the resource 'caption style templates' and specifies the returned fields (thumbnails, names, IDs). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that list other resources like game videos or music.

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 explains the downstream use: 'Use the templateId when creating shorts.' This gives clear context on when to call the tool. It does not explicitly state exclusion criteria, but the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct that confusion is unlikely.

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