Get Item Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description is consistent with these but adds little behavioral context beyond the classification it returns (which the output schema already covers). No contradiction, but no meaningful addition either.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb comes first and the parenthetical examples earn their place. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified for a tool whose scope words ('detailed type info') remain slightly loose.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values, and the core purpose is conveyed. However, for a tool surrounded by near-identical read siblings, the lack of routing or disambiguation leaves a real 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?

Only one parameter (item_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it as 'Node ID or name of the project item'. The description adds no format or usage nuance for this identifier, 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 (Get) and resource (type info about a project item) and anchors the scope with concrete return categories: sequence, multicam, merged clip. The purpose is clear, but there is no differentiation from the very similarly named sibling get_project_item_info, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative. With siblings like get_project_item_info, get_full_clip_info, and get_clip_properties, the agent gets no help deciding which to call.

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