get_mogrt_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; 'Get' implies a safe read and 'editable properties' hints the returned values are consumable by set_mogrt_property, which is useful. However it says nothing about failure modes for non-MoGRT clips, indexing semantics, or whether values are raw or display-formatted.

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 with no wasted words; the resource and target are established immediately. It is efficient, though almost too terse for a tool with no other documentation.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should have sketched the return shape (property names/values, ordering) and the MoGRT preconditions, but it does not. Adequate to select the tool, insufficient to use it confidently on first invocation.

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% for both parameters (clipIndex, trackIndex), so the schema does the documentation work. The description adds no meaning beyond it — it doesn't clarify index base, whether trackIndex refers to video tracks only, or how to obtain valid indices.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get the editable properties of a Motion Graphics clip on the timeline'. An agent can distinguish it from set_mogrt_property (the write counterpart) and get_clip_info (generic clip info) from the wording alone, 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?

No statement of when to use this versus get_clip_info, get_clip_effects, or set_mogrt_property, and no prerequisites (e.g., the clip must actually be a MoGRT clip). The agent must infer the workflow context.

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