get_clip_pitch

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read operation without side effects, but it offers no details about the return value format, potential errors, or constraints (e.g., valid index ranges). The description is minimally transparent.

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 very short—one sentence plus parameter list—with no wasted words. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than efficiently concise, as it omits helpful details without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given no output schema and simple functionality, the description should at least mention the return type (e.g., a number representing pitch shift in semitones). It also fails to note that this is the read counterpart of 'set_clip_pitch'. The description is incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It merely restates parameter names ('The index of the track', 'The index of the clip slot') without adding meaning beyond their titles. No additional semantics like valid ranges or relationships are provided.

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 the action (Get) and resource (pitch shift of an audio clip), and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like 'set_clip_pitch' and other 'get_*' tools. However, it could be slightly more specific about what the pitch shift value represents (e.g., semitones).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or conditions. It only lists parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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