get_scene_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. It explains what the tool returns (clip status for every track, including track name, clip presence, clip name/color, and playing/recording/triggered state). It does not describe error cases or explicitly state it is read-only, but the 'Get' verb and return description imply a safe, non-mutating operation.

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 succinct and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, the second paragraph describes the output content, and the Args section clearly documents the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is complete enough. It covers the tool's purpose, the return payload's key fields, and the parameter's meaning. No additional context, such as edge-case behavior, is necessary for this read-style tool.

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 only provides the parameter name and type (integer), but the description adds essential semantics: 'scene_index: Zero-based index of the scene.' This fully explains the meaning and expected format of the parameter, compensating 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 the tool's function: 'Get all clips in a scene across all tracks.' The verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'clips in a scene' with the scope 'across all tracks' make it unambiguous and distinguish it from sibling tools like get_clip_slot_status, which likely targets a single clip slot.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (when you need a comprehensive view of all clips in a scene across all tracks) and explains what data is returned. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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