get_full_clip_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('get') but does not disclose what data is returned, whether any active selection is required, or whether it can fail (e.g., on offline media). This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with no other behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' adds no informational value and merely repeats the tool name. The single sentence does not earn its place, as it contributes no actionable details.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a rich set of sibling tools, the description must explain what 'full clip info' returns and when to use it. It does neither. The tool is simple (0 params), but the return value and use cases remain completely unspecified, leaving a significant completeness gap.

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 reflects that. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract from it.

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 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: get full clip info' essentially restates the tool name with the vague modifier 'expanded'. It fails to specify what 'full clip info' includes or how it differs from sibling tools like get_clip_properties or get_project_item_info. This is closer to a tautology than a meaningful purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., active project, selected clip), exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent without contextual decision-making support.

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