clip_features

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 only mentions that it returns a summary and execution info, but does not disclose whether it modifies data, requires specific permissions, or other behavioral traits typical of a clip operation.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it omits essential details about the tool's behavior and parameters. It front-loads the main action but fails to earn its place by not adding sufficient context.

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 parameter count of 6 (3 required), zero annotations, and no output schema description, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, parameter details, or execution context, leaving an agent with insufficient information.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the input schema. The tool description does not add any meaning to the parameters beyond their names, so the agent lacks understanding of what each parameter expects.

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 it executes a Clip analysis and returns a summary and execution info. The verb '执行' (execute) and resource 'Clip 分析' (Clip analysis) are specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like buffer_features, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions or prerequisites. The description provides no context on preferred use cases.

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