get_arrangement_clips

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

With no annotations, the description effectively communicates that this is a read-only operation. It lists the return fields, which gives a good sense of what the tool does. However, it does not mention edge cases like empty tracks or order of clips, but for a list tool, this is sufficient.

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 very concise: three short sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence gives the purpose, the second lists return fields, and the third explains the parameter. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, list output) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description provides enough context. It lists the return fields, so even without the output schema, an agent understands what to expect. It is complete for typical use.

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 input schema has 0% coverage (no property descriptions), so the description must compensate. It provides a clear explanation for the single parameter 'track_index' as 'the index of the track to inspect', adding meaning beyond the schema definition. This adequately fills the gap.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'clips in the Arrangement timeline for a track'. It also specifies the return fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. Among siblings, no other tool lists arrangement clips, so it is well-distinguished.

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 when to use this tool: to inspect clips in the arrangement view for a given track. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the simple nature, the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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