get_clip_info

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 implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, idempotent, or what happens if the clip indices are invalid. There is no mention of authorization requirements or side effects, leaving the agent with incomplete behavioral information.

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 at two lines, with the key action front-loaded. There is no redundant information. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a brief mention of parameters, but it is already appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 presence of an output schema (context signal), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits any mention of error handling, prerequisites, or the scope (session vs arrangement). For a straightforward retrieval tool with two parameters, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the parameters track_index and clip_index at all. No guidance is given on valid ranges, default values, or the relationship between indices. The agent receives no additional semantic information beyond the parameter names and types.

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 retrieves detailed info about a session clip and lists specific fields (name, length, loop_start, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_clip_notes (which gets MIDI notes) or set_clip_name (which modifies a clip). The verb 'Get' and resource 'session clip' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that get_clip_info is for session clips while other tools exist for arrangement clips, or that it returns a fixed set of fields versus more detailed parameters. The description lacks explicit context for when to invoke this tool.

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