List Clips

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

Annotations already establish a safe read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value beyond them: it lists the returned attributes and discloses a non-obvious behavior — that clips locked by the plan's export cap get marked. That locking disclosure is genuinely useful 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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the notable locking behavior. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the clip fields (hook, score, duration, render status). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the projectId format is left implicit.

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?

There is a single parameter (projectId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema does no explanatory work. The description only implies project scoping via "a project's clips" without defining format or source of the id. The meaning is fairly intuitive but under-specified.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("List a project's clips") and even enumerates the returned fields, so the resource is unambiguous against siblings like list_projects. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, but the scope is clear enough for selection.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., project_status or download_clip), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only weakly implied by the mention of a project's clips and render status.

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