clip_loop

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that the tool loops a clip a finite number of times, but does not mention side effects, output behavior, whether the operation is reversible or destructive, or any media-specific implications beyond 'video and audio.' Critical behavioral context is missing.

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, focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It states the core operation and the relevant scope (video and audio) efficiently. The most important qualifier, 'finite number of times,' is prominent.

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 has two required parameters reasonableness a simple scope, but no output schema and no annotations. A correct invocation depends on knowing what 'input' expects, what the tool returns, and how the looped output is made available. The description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly in a broader workflow.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It names 'a finite number of times' which maps to the 'count' parameter but does not define what 'input' is (e.g., a file path, a clip ID, or an asset reference). It also does not clarify whether 'count' includes the original clip or only additional copies. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 operation: 'Loop a clip' with the specific qualifier 'a finite number of times (video and audio).' This is a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like clip_trim or clip_concat, but the concept of looping is unique within the sibling set.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, whether the input should be a file path or a clip ID, or whether it operates in-place or creates a new clip. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.

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