get_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers by detailing exactly what is returned (timing, effects, keyframe state). It implies a safe read operation but doesn't mention potential costs or permissions, which is acceptable for a getter.

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 with zero waste. The main functionality is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a practical usage note 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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the returned data sufficiently to set expectations (timing, in-point, effects, keyframe state). It could mention the output format but the scope and content are clear, making it complete for a simple one-parameter getter.

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 single parameter node_id is 100% covered by the schema description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description doesn't add additional meaning beyond tying it to 'one clip', but the schema already provides sufficient clarity.

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 ('get') and resource ('clip') and enumerates the content (timing, in-point, effects, keyframe state), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_timeline or get_grade. It leaves no doubt about what the tool retrieves.

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 second sentence explicitly frames the tool as a pre-modification read: 'Read this before changing a clip so you know what you are overwriting.' This provides clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't 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.