get_project_item_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned data via the parenthetical field list, which is genuinely useful, but it never states that the call is side-effect-free, requires a valid item, or what happens for an invalid/unknown nodeId.

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 sentence with the core action front-loaded and the field enumeration packed into a parenthetical; there is no filler. It is slightly under-specified rather than bloated.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the parenthetical field list effectively substitutes for return-value documentation. The only real gap is nodeId provenance and invalid-input behavior, which is minor at this complexity.

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 only parameter (nodeId) is documented in the schema as 'The nodeId of the project item'. The description adds no format, provenance, or derivation detail beyond that, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('get detailed info') and resource ('a specific project item') and enumerates the returned fields (duration, frame rate, codec, dimensions, media path). It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as get_project_item_type_info or get_clip_info, so an agent must infer which one applies.

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: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs properties of a known item identified by nodeId. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of the metadata/clip-info alternatives, and no guidance on where a nodeId comes from (e.g., get_project_items).

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