ass_get_clips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing and gives the coordinate-conversion math (multiplied by 2 ** (1 - effective_scale)), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about error cases, what happens when no clips exist, or the precedence rules for its three mutually optional inputs.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a dense enumeration of returned fields. The field-by-field list largely restates what the existing output schema already conveys, so much of the length earns little, though the scale-space vs normalised explanation is valuable.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-shape prose is largely redundant rather than necessary, and the real gap — how the three optional parameters interact — is left unexplained. For a read-only extraction tool this is workable but leaves invocation ambiguity unresolved.

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% across three parameters (text, index, doc_id). The description only hints at the text-vs-line duality via the parenthetical and never explains what doc_id does, what 'index' indexes, or which parameter wins when several are supplied. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every \clip / \iclip tag') with the scope ('on a line (or in raw text)'). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like ass_parse_text or ass_tag_summary by its clip-specific focus, though it does not name any sibling to contrast against.

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 parenthetical '(on a line (or in raw text))' implies two invocation modes but never states when to use this versus ass_set_clip, ass_remove_clip, ass_convert_clip_scale, or ass_parse_text. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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