get_clip

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: return content varies by clip type (audio adds gain_db, pitch, warping; arrangement clips give start/end), and notes retrieval is capped by `limit`. It does not mention authorization or failure modes, but for a read tool this is solid.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope, then the conditional return content, then the notes option. The property enumeration is long but each clause adds information rather than restating the name; 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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly explains return values, which it does thoroughly and per clip type. But for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the omission of how slot vs arrangement_clip vs track select the clip is a meaningful completeness gap affecting correct invocation.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it only clarifies notes and limit ('up to `limit` notes'). The two address-selecting parameters, slot and arrangement_clip, plus track, are never explained, so an agent cannot tell from the description how to identify the target clip or whether slot and arrangement_clip are mutually exclusive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (retrieve every property of one clip) and enumerates what that includes, which makes it clearly distinct from get_notes and get_track. It does not explicitly say what it is not, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 only routing guidance is a narrow note about notes: 'notes=True adds up to `limit` notes (or use get_notes with filters)', which usefully points at an alternative. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus get_track, set_clip, or clip_action, and none on the addressing modes.

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