calculate_clip_file_sizes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the writing to metadata field in GB with 4 decimal places, and handling of multi-part files and image sequences. However, it does not discuss error handling, performance, or prerequisites like clip import status.

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 concise with 4 sentences plus an Args list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the Args section could be integrated into the prose to be slightly more streamlined.

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 tool's complexity (handling multi-part files and image sequences), the description covers main behaviors. But it is vague about 'current folder' and does not mention prerequisites or return values (though output schema exists). Could be more complete.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates with an Args section explaining that 'clip_names' is a list of clip names, defaulting to all clips in the current folder if None. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool calculates file sizes for clips and writes to the 'Size' metadata field. It specifies handling of regular files, R3D multi-part files, and image sequences, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_clip_metadata' or 'set_clip_metadata'.

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 explains when to use (to calculate file sizes for clips, optionally filtered by clip_names) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. For example, it doesn't mention that 'get_clip_metadata' could be used to read existing sizes.

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