get_arrangement_clips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does, not the return format, possible errors, or that it is a read-only operation. Compared to the calibration example for a read-only tool without annotations, this lacks critical behavioral context.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single purpose statement and a parameter definition. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, with no redundant 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 simple one-parameter getter, the description provides the essential information: what it retrieves and the parameter to specify. The presence of an output schema covers the return value details, so the description is sufficiently complete for basic usage. Minor omission: no mention of possible edge cases (e.g., invalid track index).

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%, but the description explicitly defines the sole parameter ('track_index: Zero-based index of the track'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property name and type, effectively compensating for the missing schema description.

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 ('Get'), resource ('clips in the arrangement view for a track'), and clearly identifies the tool's scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_scene_clips' or 'get_clip_slot_status', which operate in different contexts.

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 implies usage context: when you need clips in the arrangement view for a track, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., 'get_scene_clips' for session view). The context is clear but not elaborated.

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