pr_getClipProperties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return breadth (all effect components, not just transform) and that keyframe data is included — information an agent cannot get from annotations and that matters when deciding whether this call is expensive or 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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and the enumerated component types front-loaded. Only the 'Premiere Pro:' app prefix is arguably redundant with the tool's pr_ prefix.

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 no output schema, the description must carry return-value information, and it does say what categories come back. However, it leaves the shape of the response unknown — how components, parameters and keyframe arrays are nested — and says nothing about behavior when the clip reference does not resolve, which matters for a nested-object-parameter read tool.

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 100%: the nested clip object documents track/clip/time addressing and the sequence parameter documents the active-sequence default. The description adds nothing about how the clip or sequence arguments behave, 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 resource and scope: every effect component on a clip, with parameters, values and keyframes, and names concrete component types (Motion, Opacity, Lumetri, plugins). An agent can distinguish it from the mutating pr_setClipProperties and from sequence-wide pr_getSequenceState, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as pr_getSequenceState, pr_getSelection or pr_findEffects. The read-only nature implies inspection, but the routing decision is left entirely to the agent's inference.

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