get_clip_effects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. 'List' implies a read-only lookup and 'with their properties' hints at the payload, but there is no statement about empty results, error behavior for invalid indices, or nested/ordered output.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource and the returned content with 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?

For a simple three-parameter read with a fully described schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns at a conceptual level. Without an output schema, a note on the shape of the returned effect objects would close the last gap.

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 100% with all three required parameters (trackType enum, trackIndex, clipIndex) documented in the schema. The description adds no addressing semantics such as whether indices are zero-based or relative to the active sequence, so baseline 3 applies.

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 all effects (components) applied to a clip, with their properties.' The phrase 'applied to a clip' disambiguates it from the catalog-style siblings get_video_effects_list and get_audio_effects_list, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the scope ('applied to a clip'). It never says when to reach for this versus get_effect_property (per-effect property read) or the effects catalog tools, and gives no prerequisites such as needing an active sequence or valid clip indices.

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