get_clip_timing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying that Arrangement responses include timeline identity, which is a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. It also scopes the operation to exactly one clip.

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 sentence with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the extra note about Arrangement timeline identity is placed at the end without disrupting the main message. Every word contributes to the tool's understanding.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately lists the return payload (loop, signature, launch quantization, groove assignment) and the special timeline identity for Arrangement clips. It is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect, though it does not specify the response structure (e.g., object shape), which is a minor gap given the tool's read-only nature.

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%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds only the qualifier 'exact' to reinforce that a single clip is targeted, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states about clip ID formats and track ID stability.

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 ('Read') and resource (clip loop, signature, launch quantization, groove assignment) for a single Session or Arrangement clip. It clearly distinguishes from sibling write tool set_clip_timing and other read tools by enumerating the exact properties retrieved.

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 implies usage for reading timing-related properties of one exact clip, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It does not contrast with get_clip_groove_context or get_midi_clip_notes, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate choice from property lists.

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