Check for additional tools whenever your task might benefit from specialized capabilities - even if existing tools could work as a fallback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | Yes | A description of your goal and what kind of tool would help accomplish it. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as what 'check' entails, whether it makes a network call, or what side effects (if any) occur beyond the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It quickly communicates the action and the conditions for use, making it efficient and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured with a separate usage note.
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 description gives clear usage guidance but does not explain what the tool returns or what happens after 'checking' for tools. With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of explaining the result, which it fails to do. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is a notable gap, though not severe.
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 single parameter 'context' is already documented with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with 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 clearly states the tool's function: checking for additional tools when a task could benefit from specialized capabilities. It distinguishes itself from the sibling clipform_* tools by being a meta-tool for tool discovery rather than a domain-specific operation, though it does not explicitly name this distinction.
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 explicit usage guidance: use this tool whenever specialized capabilities might help, even if existing tools could work as a fallback. This gives the agent a clear decision rule, though it does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most form/node CRUD tools are clearly distinct, but the render/generate trio (generate_video, render_video_template, render_composition) and get_responses vs get_results can be confused by name alone. The descriptions include strong disambiguation guidance, so the overlap is manageable but still present.
The vast majority of tools follow a consistent clipform_verb_noun snake_case pattern, with create/get/update/delete/list used predictably. Minor deviations include get_more_tools lacking the clipform_ prefix and whoami not matching the verb_noun convention.
At 34 tools, this is above the range where a toolset feels well-scoped, and several entries are auxiliary or internal (whoami, log_generation, get_more_tools, search_news). The domain is broad, but the surface could be consolidated without losing core capabilities.
The set covers form and node lifecycle, media upload/attachment, logic wiring, publishing, responses/results, and content generation (TTS, video, music, stock media). Minor gaps remain, such as no conditional branching in set_logic and no general media-library listing tool.
