get_clips_by_category

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about automatic account usage and return format details (path, duration, dimensions), which goes beyond the basic 'get' operation. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'get' implies it).

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, automatic behavior, and return format. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The second sentence could potentially be merged for even tighter structure, but overall it's concise with minimal waste.

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 operation with no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks details about the return structure (e.g., array format, pagination), error handling, or authentication requirements beyond the automatic account usage. The absence of annotations means more behavioral context would be helpful.

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%, with the single parameter 'category' fully documented in the schema with enum values. The description adds marginal value by listing the categories in parentheses, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get clips from Statonic library filtered by category' with specific categories listed. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_clip_bank' or 'search_statonic_library' by focusing on category filtering rather than general search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'analyze_statonic_library' or 'index_clip_bank', which prevents a perfect score.

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 context by mentioning 'filtered by category' and 'currently active account', suggesting this is for retrieving clips when you know the specific category needed. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_clip_bank' or 'search_statonic_library', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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