bin_list_clips

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is consistent, but the description does not add behavioral context beyond that — no statement about read-only safety, empty-bin behavior, or whether nested folder assets are included. The output schema may cover return structure, but edge behavior is left undisclosed.

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 12-word sentence that front-loads the verb and scope, then specifies the returned fields. Every word earns its place; there is zero redundancy or filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it states exactly what the agent will receive without needing to pass anything. The only gap is the absence of routing context toward sibling tools, but that gap is minor given how simple and self-contained this tool is.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than inventing parameter detail that does not exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') tied to a clear resource ('every asset in the project bin') and enumerates the exact fields returned: ID, name, type, and duration. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like bin_get_clip_details (single-clip detail retrieval), bin_import_clip, and bin_remove_clip, which operate on individual clips rather than enumerating the whole bin.

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 phrase 'List every asset' implies a broad enumeration use case, so an agent can infer when to reach for it versus single-clip tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of bin_get_clip_details or clip_get_properties as the right choice when only one clip's details are needed.

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