get_clip_speed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it only partially does. The 'Get' verb plus 'speed and reverse status' implies a safe read, but it says nothing about failure modes (invalid clipIndex, missing track) or whether it reflects the clip's effective rate after speed ramps.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Correct size for a narrow getter.

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 3-parameter read with no output schema, the description adequately states what the caller gets back (speed and reverse status). The remaining gap is index/ordering semantics and behavior on invalid input, which are minor for this complexity level.

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 coverage is 100%, so the three parameters are already documented, and the descriptions are terse ('Clip index', 'Track type'). The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema — no clarification of index base (0 vs 1) or how trackType interacts with trackIndex.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates the exact data returned ('playback speed and reverse status'), which clearly separates it from siblings like set_clip_speed or the broader get_clip_info. It never explicitly names those siblings, keeping it just short of a 5.

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: the pairing with set_clip_speed and the 'Get' prefix suggest this is the read side of a read/modify cycle. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives such as get_clip_info, and no stated prerequisites.

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