list_clips

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little on safety. It adds the useful scope 'one exact track', but does not disclose return shape, ordering, or behavior when the track has no clips; with annotations covering the main risk, 3 is appropriate.

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 contains the action, resource, and scope with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only list operation, the description plus schema and annotations are nearly sufficient. It does not detail the returned clip slot structure, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the explicit mention of 'clip slots and clips' and by the simplicity of the operation.

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 'trackId' parameter is already documented as the stable ID from list_tracks. The description's 'exact track' phrasing reinforces the parameter's role but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 ('List'), names the resource ('clip slots and clips'), and scopes it to 'one exact track', which differentiates it from list_tracks (all tracks) and list_arrangement_clips (arrangement view). No opening of the schema is needed to understand what the tool does.

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 phrase 'on one exact track' gives clear context: call this when you already have a specific trackId and need its clip contents. It does not name alternatives or exclusions explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over siblings.

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