get_clip_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not state side-effect safety, what happens when XMP is absent, or what the response contains, leaving significant gaps for a tool with zero structured behavioral metadata.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though it is somewhat terse given the missing behavioral context.

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 one-parameter getter, the description minimally identifies the resource and result category. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about the return shape or XMP absence behavior to fully equip an agent.

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%, and the single nodeId parameter is already documented in the schema as 'The nodeId of the project item'. The description adds no further meaning about nodeId format, scope, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving all XMP metadata properties of a project item. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_xmp_metadata, get_file_metadata, or get_clip_info.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus get_xmp_metadata, get_file_metadata, get_clip_info, or get_project_item_info. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts.

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