get_clip_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly lists all possible return fields, notes 'if available', and specifies audio-only additions (file_path, ram_mode, gain, etc.), giving a strong behavioral contract. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a read-only getter this is adequate.

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 well-structured with a property list and an Args section. Although the property list is long, it serves the purpose of making 'comprehensive' concrete. Each element adds value, and there is no 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?

Given that the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return format, but it still enumerates the returned fields. It covers parameter semantics and conditional data. It could be improved by noting behavior for invalid indices, but overall it's complete enough for safe invocation.

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 input schema only provides type and title for the two parameters. The description adds the critical zero-based indexing semantics for both track_index and clip_index, which is essential for correct invocation. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive properties of a clip'), and differentiates itself from narrower sibling getters by enumerating the full property list. This makes it unambiguous what the tool does.

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?

It provides parameter usage (zero-based indexing) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_clip_slot_status or get_clip_fades. The 'comprehensive' scope implies use for full property retrieval, but no direct comparison or exclusion is given.

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