get_lumetri_basic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only that the operation is a read. It says nothing about what happens when the clip has no Lumetri effect, whether sequence/track context is required, or what the returned values look like. The single word 'Reads' implies non-destructiveness but that is the extent of the disclosure.

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 tight sentence with the key information front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the shape of the returned Lumetri Basic values (exposure, contrast, saturation, etc.) and it does not. Combined with the absence of annotations and the multi-parameter clip/sequence/track targeting, an agent lacks what it needs to interpret the result.

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%, with clipIndex, videoTrack, sequenceId and sequenceName all documented inline including the V2 default and the 'either sequenceName or sequenceId' note. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Reads') and resource ('Lumetri Basic Correction values') scoped to 'a clip', which is enough to distinguish it from the mutation sibling set_lumetri_basic. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the color-correction family, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 versus set_lumetri_basic, get_effect_properties, or color_correct, and no prerequisites (e.g. that a clip must have Lumetri applied). The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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