get_file_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies read-only, but the description says nothing about behavior for non-media project items (bins, sequences, offline media), whether the media must be online, or what happens if the node lacks technical metadata — meaningful gaps for a file-inspection tool.

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 tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing is wasted.

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 read tool with no output schema, the field enumeration partially substitutes for a return-value description. It remains incomplete on applicability (which project item types are supported) and failure behavior, which an agent would want before calling.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The nodeId of the project item'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no semantics about what kinds of nodeId are valid (clip vs. bin vs. 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 (Get) and resource (technical file metadata) and enumerates the concrete fields returned — codec, resolution, frame rate, duration, file size — so an agent knows what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like get_clip_metadata, get_xmp_metadata, or get_project_item_info, which is the only thing keeping it below 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternative is named. An agent choosing among get_file_metadata, get_clip_metadata, get_xmp_metadata, and get_project_item_info gets no help from this description about which to pick.

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