get_clip_playing_position

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. It clearly states the return fields (playing_position, is_playing, is_triggered) and explains that track_index and clip_index are zero-based. It does not explicitly mention side effects or error behavior, but for a read-only getter, this provides adequate transparency.

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. It opens with a clear one-line purpose, then lists return values, and finally presents the two parameters. No extraneous information or redundant phrasing is present.

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 only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers everything needed: what the tool does, what it returns, and the meaning of each parameter. It is complete for the tool's complexity and matches the output schema's information.

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 schema_description_coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that track_index and clip_index are zero-based indices, adding meaning beyond the bare schema definition. This is particularly helpful for the target domain where indexing is often ambiguous.

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 action: 'Get the current playback position and state of a clip.' It specifies the resource (clip) and the returned information (playing_position, is_playing, is_triggered), which distinguishes it from other clip-related tools like get_clip_slot_status or get_clip_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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'Get', which is insufficient for guiding an AI agent in selecting this tool over other clip introspection tools.

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