List clips

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

The description mentions paging and status filtering, and implies authentication via 'authenticated user'. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it omits details like response format, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only.

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, efficient sentence that conveys key endpoint logic. It is concise and front-loaded, though the endpoint details could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 has 4 parameters, no required ones, and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, pagination boundaries, or how status filtering interacts with paging, leaving significant gaps.

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. It only briefly mentions 'paging/status' and projectId, without explaining the meaning of each parameter (e.g., page, limit, status enum values). This is insufficient for an agent to correctly use the parameters.

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 that the tool retrieves clips for the authenticated user, with different endpoints based on the presence of a projectId. It effectively communicates the core function, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_clip_status or list_projects.

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 provides conditional usage guidance (with vs without projectId), implying when to use each variant. However, it does not offer explicit when-not-to-use advice or compare against alternative tools like list_movies or list_projects.

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