list_connected_clips

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

The tool is a read-only operation with no annotations. The description accurately depicts a listing behavior with no side effects. It adds context about output (lanes, parent clips) beyond what annotations would provide, making the behavior 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and outcome. No extraneous 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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and output. It could mention that only FCPXML files are supported, but the filepath parameter hints at this. Sibling differentiation is not explicit, but the name and description suffice.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description provides context ('connected clips' types) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for parameter usage.

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 verb 'List', specifies the resource 'connected clips (B-roll, titles, audio)', and explains the output includes 'lanes and parent clips'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_clips' and 'add_connected_clip'.

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 when one needs to view connected clips but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. With many sibling tools, clearer usage boundaries would be helpful.

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