bin_get_clip_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' reasonably implies a non-mutating read operation, and the listed property categories give some behavioral context. However, it does not address prerequisites, error behavior, or whether the operation has any side effects.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a single parameter explanation. There is no unnecessary filler, though the Args formatting could be tightened; overall every line 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 is a simple one-parameter getter with an output schema available, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and result categories. The main gap is lack of differentiation from clip_get_properties and any stated state requirements, but for its low complexity it is reasonably complete.

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 define clip_id on its own. It does so clearly: 'The clip identifier from the bin.' This adds source and scope beyond the bare schema type. It could mention the expected format, but for a single required parameter it is sufficient.

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?

Description states a clear action ('Get detailed properties') and resource ('a bin clip'), with concrete examples of the data returned (length, aspect ratio, media info). It is unambiguous but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling clip_get_properties.

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 given for when to use this tool versus clip_get_properties or other clip/bin tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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