get_clip_loop

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

Annotations are absent, and the description merely states the action without disclosing any behavioral traits. It does not confirm that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or error handling. For a read operation, the minimal description forces agents to infer safety.

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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and two lines for parameters. Every element serves a clear function, with the main action stated first and parameter details following directly.

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?

Despite being simple, the description lacks critical information. It doesn't specify what the loop settings are (e.g., loop on/off, start/end points) or what return format to expect. With no output schema and no annotation context, the agent is left guessing about the tool's output and behavior.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool's description explains both parameters in plain terms (e.g., 'The index of the track containing the clip' for track_index). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and title, though ranges or valid values are omitted.

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 clearly states 'Get the loop settings of a clip', specifying a verb ('Get') and resource ('loop settings of a clip'). The tool name and sibling tools (e.g., set_clip_loop) reinforce its purpose as a getter, making it easily distinguishable.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_clip_loop or other get_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditional use cases.

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