get_grade

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, and the scope ('every graded clip') clarifies what data is returned. It doesn't describe the return format or edge cases, but for a zero-parameter read operation, it's adequately 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and includes a purpose clause. Every word earns its place, no filler.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose, usage context, and scope. It doesn't detail the exact return structure, but that's not necessary given the simplicity; the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining what will be fetched, which is especially useful given no parameters to document.

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 the specific verb 'Read' to identify this as a retrieval operation, names the resource ('Lumetri Basic Correction values of every graded clip'), and notes the batch nature ('in one call'). This clearly differentiates it from per-clip getters like get_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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to compare grades across shots without inspecting clips one at a time. It implies an alternative (per-clip inspection) though it doesn't name the specific sibling tool or state when not to use it.

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