get_clip_fades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: return values are in beats, and it only works for audio clips. However, it does not describe error behavior (e.g., what happens if the clip is not an audio clip) or any side effects (though it's a read operation). This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by return information, a constraint, and a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 getter with two parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers what the tool returns and the main constraint (audio clips only). It could optionally mention behavior for non-audio clips, but the output schema and simple scope make this complete enough.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by providing an 'Args' section that explains each parameter: 'track_index' and 'clip_index' are zero-based indices. This adds meaning beyond the schema's plain integer types. It clearly defines both required 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 the tool's function: 'Get the fade in and fade out lengths of an audio clip.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_clip_fades. It also mentions the return values 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?

The description provides a usage constraint ('Only available for audio clips') but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this is a getter for fade parameters, there is no mention of when a user should prefer this over get_clip_properties or other related getters. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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