get_footage_interpretation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool 'Gets' settings, implying a read-only operation, which is clear. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the projectItemId is invalid, whether the tool returns all settings or a subset, or any side effects (though 'Gets' suggests none). The description is adequate but minimal—it doesn't add rich behavioral context beyond the obvious read nature.

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 action ('Gets the footage interpretation settings') and includes a parenthetical list of example settings for clarity. Zero wasted words, perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), and the description covers the core purpose. However, it doesn't mention what the return value looks like (since there's no output schema), nor does it clarify whether the settings are returned as a structured object or a formatted string. For a getter tool, some indication of the return format would improve completeness, but the simplicity of the tool keeps this at a 3.

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% (the single parameter projectItemId is described as 'The ID of the project item'). The description adds the context that the parameter refers to a project item and that the tool retrieves interpretation settings for it, but it doesn't add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 retrieves footage interpretation settings (frame rate, pixel aspect ratio, field type, etc.) for a project item. It uses a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('footage interpretation settings'), and the parenthetical examples add useful specificity. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like set_footage_interpretation, but the get/set pairing is implicit and the purpose is clear.

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 context: it's a read operation for retrieving settings, and the sibling set_footage_interpretation suggests the counterpart. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., must have a valid project item), and no mention of when this would be useful (e.g., before modifying settings). The context is implied but not stated.

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